Talk:Highgate Vampire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Calm down people

This edit war is ridiculous. I don't know who any of the combatants are in this battle, but I do know that the resultant article is not good. I live only a couple of hundred yards from Highgate Cemetery, so I have a interest in this article and other local history. But arguing about the individuals who reported and investigated this occurence and what they did doesn't help any Wikipedia readers.

A few starting points:

• I suggest you all review the Wikipedia list of policies
• Please sign your posts on talk pages
• Observe good Wikiquette
• Let's not try to join this list

Beest 19:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's too laaaaattttteeee... --Luigifan (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

More starting points

1. I suggest that everybody should start writing his/her contributions below the other. Currently, this talk page is extremely confusing and impossible to read for anyone uninvolved.

2. I also want to urge everybody to start signing his/her posts by typing four tildes (or else pressing the third button on the right above the text), which generates a signature and time stamp, and preferably separate his/her comments from the preceding ones by starting with a colon. For example: Comment.--194.145.161.227 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment.--194.145.161.227 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment.--194.145.161.227 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment.--194.145.161.227 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This makes reading much easier.

3. "Wikipedia" doesn't "want" anything, and I don't represent Wikipedia here any more than anybody else. What counts is Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, notably Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not can also be useful). Every contributor should be familiar with them and observe them. If these and other rules are violated in an blatant way, administrator intervention can be expected. Otherwise, those who determine what is to be done are the editors of a page, and they are supposed to reach some kind of consensus. Personally, I think that it's okay to mention that religious scholar J. Gordon Melton, believes Manchester's version to be true (if he does), and add the reference.

4. The page was protected from editing by non-registered users due to vandalism by multiple IPs (apparently used by Dennis Crawford), which also violated the three-revert rule. This is a standard procedure on Wikipedia, when the administrators see no other way to stop the vandalism. Currently, any user who has been registered for some time is allowed to contribute to the article. However, if a registered user does the same things that the IP-user(s) did, s/he too will be blocked from editing, too. For example, it is indisputable that obvious polemic parenthetical comments may not be inserted to disrupt the text of an article. It is likewise indisputable that relevant and sourced information may not be deleted en masse. Also, my interpretation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability is that an extreme minority view held mostly by non-scholars (in this case, that vampires exist) can't be represented in the article, and that Manchester is not a reliable source. However, this last opinion is subject to discussion, I might be wrong about this, and other Wikipedians might disagree with me. Perhaps Manchester's and Farrant's versions of the events should be mentioned in separate sections. My reason to doubt it is that vampire belief is an extreme minority view, which is even rarer than general belief in ghosts or the paranormal, not only in science but also among ordinary people.

Excerpt from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).

Excerpt from Wikipedia:Verifiability: Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources. --194.145.161.227 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the article according to User:Vampire Research Society

(1) Jacqueline Simpson claims in her entry for the Highgate Vampire: "The fullest account is given by a folklore scholar, Professor Bill Ellis, in the journal Folklore." This is false. Ellis' article is a few pages and depends largely on newspaper cuttings which he later admitted were inaccurate and an interview with David Farrant in July 1992 which, in private correspondence to Seán Manchester, he admitted was unreliable. The fullest account is given in Seán Manchester's The Highgate Vampire (Gothic Press), but even accounts given elsewhere by Peter Underwood in The Vampires Bedside Companion (Leslie Frewin Books) and Exorcism! (Robert Hale) are significantly fuller than Bill Ellis' little article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

There is a partial misunderstanding here. If you read the text carefully, you'll see that it says that Ellis' article gives the fullest account of the creation of the urban legend about the Highgate vampire, which is what the article is currently devoted to. Manchester and Farrant haven't described the creation of the legend; rather, they have been creating it (at least from Ellis' point of view). The question is whether their points of view deserve to be represented as equal to Ellis', given the fact that they contain exceptional claims, which can't be verified and which we are expected to take their word for. As for what Ellis admitted, we don't have any proof of that (assertions about his private correspondence* can't be verified). The other accounts that you mentioned have the same problems as Manchester's and Farrant's, and mostly repeat Manchester' version of the events. --194.145.161.227 23:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Bill Ellis' correspondence to Seán Manchester

Vampire Research Society

You are misinterpreting the letter. Ellis is actually saying that the newspaper articles, just like Farrant's and Manchester's accounts, may be inaccurate* - because the whole story is a legend. He doesn't specify what in the articles is false, and we have no proof of it.--194.145.161.227 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(*)Would you care to quote where Ellis says these accounts "may be inaccurate"? This is what Ellis' correspondence actually states: "We agree that the contemporary press handling WAS often inaccurate, and that most subsequent discussions WERE even more distorted." (My emphasis). Nowhere does he use words like "might" or "may be." (10 July 2006 - Vampire Research Society)

It'll be easier if you sign your posts by typing 4 tildes, or by pressing the button with a picture of a signature on top of the screen. This is automatically transformed into a signature with the exact time of typing. Also, the number of colons should be augmented by one with each reply within the same thread, unless a new topic is started.

As for "may be" - OK, he says they are often inaccurate, but that wasn't my point. The point is that Ellis doesn't admit that his account is fundamentally wrong, or that he has been mislead by the articles, or that Manchester's account of the events is the correct one. As far as I can see, he is just being polite and diplomatic for the most part. He does admit that some parts of his account need to be corrected, (which means, IMO, that it shouldn't be used as the only source about the events). This is, however, not the same as accepting Manchester's version as the truth.

In any case, I want to thank you for your efforts to improve the accuracy of information on Wikipedia concerning all these details. But it seems to me that the main purpose of your contributions is to prove that Manchester's account and point of view are the ones that should dominate the article - and I'm afraid that that can never become acceptable. --194.145.161.227 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As Seán Manchester's point of view is not being represented in the entry, how can it "dominate"? The main thrust of the Vampire Research Society in this discussion is to reveal the many flaws and factual inaccuracies in Simpson's misleading version which distorts and misrepresents Seán Manchester's account and is entirely reliant on Ellis.

Vampire Research Society 13 July 2006

(2) "Other narratives which treat these purported happenings as fact are available in the books and websites of Sean Manchester and David Farrant," claims Simpson. Yet Farrant's pamphlets (they are not books) deny the existence of a vampire at Highgate Cemetery and whitewash his lone "vampire hunting" in 1970 with revisionism. Likewise, Farrant's website only serves to deny all claim to his belief in or pursuit of the Highgate Vampire. He is hardly another source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

See Jacqeline Simpson's answer.

(3) "On 21 December 1969 one of their members, David Farrant, spent the night there. In a letter to the Hampstead and Highgate Express on 6 February 1970, he wrote that he had glimpsed a very tall figure with inhuman, hypnotic eyes, and asked if others had seen anything similar," claims Simpson. Nowhere in Farrant's letter does he say he "spent the night there" or that the spectre had "inhuman, hypnotic eyes." The complete and unexpurgated version of the original letter published by the Hampstead & Highgate Express on 6 February 1970 actually states: "Some nights I walk home past the gates of Highgate Cemetery. On three occasions I have seen what appeared to be a ghost-like figure inside the gates at the top of Swains Lane. The first occasion was on Christmas Eve. I saw a grey figure for a few seconds before it disappeared into the darkness. The second sighting, a week later, was also brief. Last week, the figure appeared long enough for me to see it much more clearly, and now I can think of no other explanation than this apparition being supernatural. I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested to hear if any other readers have seen anything of this nature."

(4) "He told the Hampstead and Highgate Express on 27 February 1970 that he had seen the bodies of foxes drained of blood," states Simpson. Nowhere in that article does Seán Manchester or anyone else mention "foxes drained of blood."

That should be checked, but I don't see what point you're trying to make here.* Manchester obviously mentions "animal carcasses drained of blood" in his book or at least on his website here, in a text that you yourself pasted to the article as an anonymous editor (thus probably violating a wikipedia policy by infringing his copyright? you need to have a release from the author, posted on his website, or else the author should post it himself and state that he agrees that it be used on Wikipedia). --194.145.161.227 23:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(*)The point is that your reliance on Simpson is largely because you regard her as a "scholar" who does her research properly. Yet she cannot correctly quote a simple thing like a reference date. The Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970, was titled "Why do the foxes die?" and includes witnesses to the fact that these foxes were drained of blood, not the issue published on 27 February 1970 where no mention of this is made. How can she be relied upon when something so fundamental is wrong?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

Not too fundamental in an account of the story as a legend. Anyway - both scholars and wikipedia editors make mistakes, and these should be corrected, but this can never be a reason to replace their account with Manchester's extraordinary and unverifiable assertions. --194.145.161.227 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsonworthing 10:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Simpsonworthing, comment:::: The error, if indeed there is one, is not mine. Ellis (p.23) writes: "Nevertheless he [SM] told a local reporter he was concerned by the numbers of carcasses of foxes and other large animals that were showing up with 'lacerations around the throat and ... completely drained of blood.' His conclusion: a vampire was at work. The Highgate and Hampstead Express's next weekly issue [i.e. 27/2]featured Manchester's warnings under the wry headline Does a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?" Ellis then goes on to summarise one passage and give another verbatim from SM's interview in HHE 27/2/70. His footnotes give only one source for the whole of the above, i.e. HHE 27/2/70. As Ellis is treating his sources chronologically, he would be unlikely to quote from the March issue (which, we can all agree, did return to the topic of foxes) before a quote from that of 27 Feb. Jacqueline Simpson

The inaccuracies in Bill Ellis' account and his sloppy handling of reports on public record has been raised elsewhere. Before me is a copy of the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 27 February 1970 - headlined "Does a wampyr walk in Highgate?" - and I can assure anyone who is interested that there is no mention whatsoever of foxes, exsanguinated or otherwise, to be found in this article. Reliance on this source makes a mockery of the entry from Simpson because Ellis is so often unreliable.

Vampire Research Society 12 July 2006

No it doesn't, because this detail, like so many other details that you have raised, is rather insignificant. The article as it is now provides the basic information about this case that our readers need.--194.145.161.227 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

(5) "Manchester declared that he would hold an 'official' vampire hunt on Friday 13 March," claims Simpson. This was not publicly announced. It was privately conveyed to the team of investigators accompanying Seán Manchester. Jacqueline Simspon read about this in Seán Manchester's account, but then gives the false impression that it was made public.

(6) "Press and TV duly responded. Interviews with both men were broadcast on ITV early that evening, and within two hours a mob of 'hunters' from all over London and beyond swarmed over gates and walls into the locked cemetery, and were with difficulty expelled by police," states Simspon. The media responded to the growing public concern. They had no knowledge of a proposed vampire hunt. The public did respond to the television programme. The police, however, made no attempt to expel anyone from Highgate Cemetery on the night of 13 March 1970. This has been invented by Jacqueline Simpson and/or Bill Ellis.

(7) "In later years, Manchester wrote his own account of his doings that night (The Highgate Vampire 1985; 2nd rev. ed. 1991). According to his narrative, he and some companions entered the cemetery, unobserved by the police, via the damaged railings of an adjoining churchyard, and tried to break open the door of one particular catacomb," says Simpson. In fact, Seán Manchester had written an account that was published in 1975, ten years prior to the first unexpurgated edition. Nowhere does Seán Manchester's account state that he "tried to break open the door of one particular catacomb."

(8) "Some months later, on 1 August 1970, the charred and headless remains of a woman's body were found not far from the catacomb. The police suspected that it had been used in black magic, but it seems likely that this was another, more drastic, attempt at vampire-slaying," claims Simpson. There is absolutely no evidence to support this allegation. The police did not treat it as such and nor did anyone else. The official view held by the police was that "black magic devotees" were responsible for this desecration. At no time did they or anyone else consider that it might have been "vampire slayers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

But if an author such as Ellis conjectured it, it can be mentioned. It does seem likely.* 194.145.161.227 23:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(*)A decapitated corpse laid out in a ritualistic manner with satanic symbols nearby does not suggest the work of a "vampire slayer." It suggests the work of Satanists who had a history of clandestinely using the graveyard at that time. The official view is that they were disturbed by someone or something and fled the scene leaving behind evidence of their work. It is not unusual for black magic devotees to steal skulls from corpses for their private ceremonies, and lay bones out in a ritualistic fashion for their conjurations. There was no impalation with a stake and no other vampire hunting evidence. The tomb itself was not yet identified or in the public domain.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

If you can provide a reliable source saying that that was the official view, it should be mentioned. If you can provide a reliable source saying that there were satanic symbols and "laying out in a ritualistic manner", that should certainly be mentioned, too. But if a scholar has made the conjecture that it was a vampire, it can be mentioned, too, regardless of what you think about it. --194.145.161.227 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsonworthing 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Simpsonworthing:::: "no impalation with a stake" -- what an extraordinary argument, coming from a Research Society! Anyone interested in the history of the vampire superstition must surely know two famous 18th century accounts, where the destruction of the vampiric corpse(s) did not involve staking. They have been cited time and again (Calmet, Summers, Barber, etc). First, that of Arnod Paole of Medvegia (Visum et Repertum). Arnod himself was famously staked, and so were his first four supposed victims, but in the second outbreak of hauntings attributed to him, "the heads of the vampires were cut off by the local gypsies and then burned along with the bodies, and the ashes thrown in the river". No staking. (Melton's brief summary is inaccurate in saying "staked and burned". Full original text in Barber.) Secondly, Pitton de Tournefort's long, sarcastic account of the panic about a vrykolakas on the Greek island of Mykonos (also in Summers, Barber etc, but not in Melton). The islanders first cut out and burnt the heart from the allegedly vampiric corpse and reburied the rest of the body, but when trouble continued they eventually dug it up again and burnt the whole thing. Again, no staking, though at one point they did stick swords into the grave. Jacqueline Simpson

To user:Vampire Research Society: Please do not delete other people's comments. It is considered uncivil.

This was unintentional and occurred due to an edit conflict (two people editing at the same time).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

Note that adding square brackets ([[) creates links to articles on wikipedia. If the article does not exist, the link is red. This is not a means to add emphasis to your text. Emphasis can be added by surrounding the text with "" (italics) and "'" (bold). --194.145.161.227 12:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-inserted:

Actually, I don't think European folk traditions matter that much here. The Highgate "vampire hunters" are more likely to have been inspired by Western fictional accounts (in particular films featuring Christopher Lee) and not by any original folklore, about which they probably had no idea whatsoever.194.145.161.227 18:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I mentioned that the hundred-year-old corpse was not impaled is because Simpson wrongly attributes the desceration to would-be "vampire slayers." All those who afflicted Highgate Cemetery in a freelance capacity at that time carried wooden stakes. None of the self-styled "vampire hunters" (ranging from university students to young thrill-seekers) when reprimanded said they wanted to decapitate it. All were found to be carrying wooden stakes and crosses. There were no knives or similar instruments found for the purpose of decapitation.

Vampire Research Society 12 July 2006

We can't take your word for that, because using an editor's personal experience for wikipedia articles is a violation of wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Also according to the no original research policy, a conjecture like the one about vampire hunters' having performed the desecration must have been published elsewhere (in a book or an article by Ellis or Simpson) before being included in Wikipedia. Has it? --194.145.161.227 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

(9) "He claims that this time he and his companions did succeed in forcing open, inch by inch, the doors of a family vault," states Simpson. The door was not "forced" and Seán Manchester's account does not say that it was forced.

(10) "The feud between Manchester and Farrant remains vigorous to this day; each claims to be a competent psychic researcher and exorcist," claims Simpson. Seán Manchester has not claimed to be a "psychic researcher," only a researcher. Neither has David Farrant claimed to be an "exorcist." While he did say in 1970 that he would stake the vampire (something he now denies saying), Farrant since that time has only attempted to raise or summon up ghosts, demons and vampires in Highgate Cemetery.* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

How about "researcher of and combatant against malign paranormal entities"?* 194.145.161.227 23:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(*)Perhaps if you are describing Seán Manchester, but this description hardly applies to Farrant. A court report in the Hornsey Journal, 16 November 1979, under the headine, "Ritual sex act and cat sacrifice," reveals: "Self-styled 'high priest' David Farrant told a High Court jury this week of the night he performed a ritual sex act in an attempt to summon up a vampire in Highgate Cemetery. He also admitted that he had taken part in the 'sacrifice' of a stray cat in Highgate Wood." Summoning up vampires is not how exorcists work.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

No. On his website, Farrant clearly asserts that he researches and combats malign paranormal entities. I can provide the exact quotes if you insist. --194.145.161.227 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If a court report really says that, I guess it can be included - together with the mention that Farrant denies having said or done that. (as the account on his website is clearly different).*--194.145.161.227 23:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(*)The importance of a court report is that Farrant stated under oath that he attempted to "summon up a vampire in Highgate Cemetery." If he was lying under oath he could be jailed for perjury. There is no penalty for whitewashing and revising the past on an internet website.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

Both can be mentioned, as I said.--194.145.161.227 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Jacqueline Simpson: (1) Ellis's paper is the fullest account of the publically known events from February 1970 onwards, because it examines all angles and all sources* (Manchester's account, Farrant's, press reports, court cases). Manchester's book is centred on his own activities and interpretations, excluding all others. Its greater length is partly due to descriptions of things unknown at the time to the public, and hence without effect on the press and public 'flap'; and partly to his highly-coloured style of writing.

(*)Ellis' account does not "examine all angles and all sources." It concentrates on the Highgate Cemetery vampire hunt of March 1970 and ignores what happened in the 1960s and 1980s, relying on sensational press reports provided by Farrant. Seán Manchester's book does not "exclude all others." It includes the experiences and views of others. Its greater length is due to the fact that Seán Manchester was leading the investigation from beginning to end. Bill Ellis and Jacqueline Simpson are mere latter-day observers.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

All of this is totally irrelevant. Ellis' account is the mainstream type of view and the only possible foundation for this article, because Manchester's is basically comparable to the flat Earth hypothesis. --194.145.161.227 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(2) Farrant, like Manchester, argues that the cemetery was haunted, though thinking the phantom is/was not necessarily a vampire.*

(*)A great many people have believed the cemetery to be haunted, but Simpson does not include any of them. So why include Farrant?**

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

How often do I have to repeat is that Farrant's major contribution to the growth of the story was to initiate an exchange of letters in the local paper, in his letter of 7/2/70? The responses(some of which i quoted in LoL) showed that yes indeed, many people did think it haunted. But it took F's letter to bring this into print.

Simpsonworthing 17:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(3) Point conceded! I was conflating a passage in Farrant's book where he speaks of spending the night of 21 Dec in the cemetery with the letter, where he speaks of passing the cemetery on 24 Dec. I shall remedy this inn the text.

(4) I have sent off for photocopies of this and other interviews and reports in Hampstead and Highgate Express.*

(*)Yet the Vampire Research Society has always made such copies available to Jacqueline Simpson and Bill Ellis.** Only now is she taking the trouble to actually consider looking at these sources. Ellis was sent facsimile copies a decade ago, but ignored them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

(**) The Vampire Research Society has never made anything whatsoever available to me. Simpsonworthing 17:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I contacted Seán Manchester over this, assuming he had Jacqueline Simpson's e-mail address (so that copies of press reports could be forwarded in facsimile). He explained that while he made his e-mail available to Simpson by snail mail, she did not reciprocate in kind. Seán Manchester and/or the Vampire Research Society would, of course, require an e-mail address in order to forward items from the archive.

Vampire Research Society 12 July 2006

(5 & 6) If Manchester didn't tell anyone outside his close followers about the proposed hunt on 13 march, it is curious that ITV chose that precise day to set up an interview with him and farrant and others.*

(*)Thames Television did not choose March 13th to shoot their programme at the cemetery. Simpson forgets that they used film in those days and reports of this kind were shot days in advance of actual transmission. In this case the interviews were all shot well ahead.**

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

(**) pre-recorded the interviews may have been, but the significant date was chosen for actually broadcasting them. Believe me, I have plenty of experience on this! TV and Radio stations often contact me for short items on supernatural and superstitious topics, to be broadcast on a Friday 13th, or on Halloween. Sometimes they are pre-recorded, sometimes live.

Simpsonworthing 17:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(6) Ellis 25: "About 100 spectators successfully got into the old part of the cemetery before being routed out by the police with searchlights". Manchester's book also mentions police with searchlights.* I am, as I said, requesting copies of press reports.

(*)Seán Manchester's book makes no mention of police entering the graveyard to expel anyone. The searchlights were being swung from the north gate in Swains Lane. Press reports are reproduced on pages 78 and 79 of Seán Manchester's Highgate Vampire account.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

(7) See Manchester 1991 describes the attempt to force the door* of the catacomb, p. 77: "The large iron door ... could not be opened. Try as we might, it would not budge an inch." I used his 1991 book rather thann the earlier 1975 account throughout, because he says the 1991 is the definitve one.

(*)Seán Manchester makes absolutely clear that the door that would not "budge an inch" (page 77) was not, in fact, entered. The door was not "forced." It would not open and, therefore, was not entered then or later. Seán Manchester "knew of another approach."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

(8) It is my own view that "it seems likely" that the body was decapitated and burnt by vampire hunters, because it matches so well the conventions of vampire-slaying. I do not claim that the police thought this, rather the reverse.

Note that if no-one else has thought of that, and if you haven't published the hypothesis in a peer-reviewed publication, it might qualify as original research (which isn't permitted).--194.145.161.227 23:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(9) Trying to get a closed door to open "inch by inch" is, precisely, forcing it.*

(*)The door was obviously heavy and rusty, but nowhere does Seán Manchester suggest it was "forced." The "heavy iron door" (page 84), that "rusty portal" (page 85) "creaked open and we gained entry" (page 85). It was not locked, broken into or indeed forced.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

(10) Define "psychic"*, to see whether what you and i mean by this word is the same.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpsonworthing (talk • contribs)

(*)"Psychic" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as someone "able to exercise psychical or occult powers." It can also be a "person susceptible to psychic influence, medium." ** While David Farrant has made such claims about himself, Seán Manchester has not.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

Move one stage back, from the noun to the adjectives, and define 'psychical or occult powers', and 'psychic influence'. In Manchester's understanding, does this include the kind of telepathy he describes between 'Lusia' and the vampire? and the powers of 'Veronica'?*** Simpsonworthing 17:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(***)You may attribute "psychical or occult powers" and "psychic influence" to Lusia and Veronica, but not to Seán Manchester.

Vampire Research Society 11 July 2006

(11) Though it didn't happen at Highgate Cemetery but in the house with the corpse in the cellar, it's interesting to note that Manchester did on that occasion use a psychic woman named as Veronica* to summon the suspected vampire by repeatedly calling "Unquiet sprit, come forth!" (Manchester 1991, p. 131). So summoning up a vampire is indeed part of the work of an exorcist. Simpsonworthing 23:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(*)Veronica was a psychic who voluntarily accompanied an investigation of the derelict house reputed to be haunted prior to it being known that this was also a place of vampire contagion. She had an interest in this haunted place as did many others. Seán Manchester did not "use" her. He accepted her assistance. He also accepted the assistance of Arthur who was an atheist. Veronica was not used to "summon the suspected vampire" because nobody suspected at this stage that the house was possessed of a vampire. Indeed, the next day Veronica returned home (page 141). She was not present at the discovery of the vampire or at its exorcism.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

(12) Jacqueline Simpson states: "Sean Manchester, former patron of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, claimed [citation needed] also to have discovered a vampire by Robin Hood's Grave on the Kirklees Estate which he visited in 1991. The 'vampire nun of Kirklees' was assumed to be the prioress who allegedly had bled Robin to death. [citation needed]..."

For "former patron of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society" read "allowed to use his name on letter-headings for a while to help raise money for charity after meeting members of the YRHS by chance at a public event over twenty years ago." Seán Manchester withdrew his consent when the original membership dwindled and disappeared back in the early 1990s. He was not actually involved in any YRHS matters and the reborn YRHS which came about some years later owed absolutely no connection to him. Furthermore, Seán Manchester did not claim to have "discovered a vampire by Robin Hood's grave." While circumstantial evidence for a predatory wraith was claimed to be present, Seán Manchester has never stated that there ever was or still is a vampire at Kirklees Park Estate. During the mid-1980s Seán Manchester heard reports of strange and mysterious happenings in the vicinity of a site on private land at Kirklees in West Yorkshire; a site, moreover, that is, rightly or wrongly (he feels wrongly), attributed to the outlaw Robin Hood. Various people approached him with their strange experiences. In 1963 Roger Williams and a companion unofficially visited the grave assumed to be Robin Hood's final resting place. Approximately twenty yards from the grave they saw a woman in white who appeared to glide towards them. What made Roger Williams' hair stand almost on end was the silent manner in which the eerie figured moved over twigs and bracken. He saw the same spectre again in 1972, and once again it halted just a few yards in front of him and the friend who accompanied him. However, this time Roger Williams recollected more detail. The apparition wore a long white robe with a square neck and long sleeves which accords with the habit of a Cistercian nun. There is a strange sequel to this account. His house later experienced a series of uncanny noises. Like voluminous booms. Afterwards Roger Williams swore that "wild horses would not drag me up there again." At a much later date, Judith Broadbent, from the Dewsbury Reporter, and staff photographer Sue Ellis, were permitted to visit the Victorian folly by Lady Margarete Armytage. Whilst at the gravesite she heard heavy footsteps behind her and she was pulled to the ground by something invisible. She shouted "get away" and her friend came rushing to help her. Then her camera jammed while trying to photograph the folly. Some days later, Sue Ellis was became seriously ill and was paralysed from the neck downwards for two weeks. Due to the distressed cries from so many in the area who sought action over what was perceived to be an urgent situation, Seán Manchester decided to hold a vigil, accompanied by two trusted assistants, close to the grave. He only organised this visit on 22 April 1990 to discover a means to remedy what he had been led to believe at the time was an urgent dilemma for locals who had been forwarding their reports of all manner of unholy happenings in the vicinity. He now accepts that the urgency was partly manufactured by the claims of a small number of people who had their own agenda; an agenda, moreover, that he does not share. With hindsight Seán Manchester does not believe he would hold an unannounced vigil without proper consent should these same circumstances once again prevail. But that was then when all hell appeared to be breaking loose and this is now. He understands why unaccompanied visits to the grave cannot normally be allowed for insurance purposes. He also deeply regrets any anxiety that might have been caused at the time when certain individuals not unconnected to the new YRHS leaked these matters to the press. This left Seán Manchester no alternative but to set the record straight in a specialist magazine called The Unexplained and a book wherein Kirklees is discussed, ie The Vampire Hunter's Handbook. All this took place last century and there have been no further developments to warrant him doing anything more without the express permission of Lady Armytage.

Vampire Research Society 09:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Jacqueline Simpson: Further to point 2 above: There is a 'Highgate Vampire Society' with a London PO box number which appears to be run by Farrant and associates; also he did call his book(let) Beyond the Highgate Vampire; also googling Farrant + vampire produces websites etc. All in all, it seems fair to say that whatever his reservations or waverings in the diagnosis of what he says he saw, he is definitely part of the Highgate Vampire Story.* And nothing can change the fact that it was his letter to the local paper printed on 6/2/70 which drew attention and sparked publicity.*** Simpsonworthing 07:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(***)Perhaps so in one newspaper. Others wrote to other newspapers. However, does that single "spark" really merit the unbalanced coverage afforded Farrant which is out of all proportion to the part he played?

Vampire Research Society 11 July 2006

Simpsonworthing 11:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)simpsonworthing comment:::: "Unbalanced coverage"?? Four sentences on DF alone, several whole paragraphs on SM alone (these forming the bulk of the entry), five sentences on them jointly. Frankly, The Vampire Research Society gives an impression of being totally paranoid on the topic of DF and wanting to obliterate all mention of him from the record.

The overwhelming majority of authors over the last three decades and a half who covered the Highgate Vampire case in their work did "obliterate" Farrant by making no mention of him. Likewise, those making documentary films about the case do not include any reference to Farrant. Some have privately commented that he is a pathetic figure seeking publicity at the periphery and of no serious interest to them.

Vampire Research Society 11 July 2006

(*)In that sense, so are many other people, yet Simpson ignores them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

Further to the asterisked point at the end of Crawford's latest comments:-- there is plenty of detail about the various court cases in Ellis, and even more in the many press reports to which Ellis refers.* Readers of the wikipedia entry can pursue these.

(*)Ellis actually gets muddled and attributes the wrong article to the wrong newspaper and issue in some instances. Ellis' employment of select press cuttings provided to him by Farrant is curious in that he confuses these reports, sometimes allocating incorrect dates, and his inclusions are less than unbiased. For example, he covers the News of the World libel case where Farrant was awarded the derisory sum of £50, but excludes any mention of the Daily Express libel case where costs of £20,000 were awarded against Farrant who lost the libel case.** This is selective recounting on the part of Ellis who was certainly aware of the Daily Express case because the Vampire Research Society provided him with press court reports of this and other cases four years prior to the publication of "Raising the Devil." He nonetheless chose to ignore them.

Vampire Research Society 12 July 2006

Please stop trying to discredit Ellis as a whole, with all his possible faults he is still a possible source, and he can never be replaced with your version. If you have a source for these libel cases, you are perfectly entitled to include them in the article.--194.145.161.227 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be necessary first to check whether the libel cases arose directly from things F did (or was alleged to have done) at Highgate Cemetery. If I remember rightly, some at least of the trouble he got into was due to his activities in other graveyards. Also, did evidence at these trials add anything to previous information about the vampire?

Simpsonworthing 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Simpsonworthing:::Comment to VRS on the ** point above. Reread Ellis's article, and you'll find he does, very briefly, mention the Daily Express libel cae, saying there was a hung verdict at the first trial, and then a second trial that went against DF.The accusation of 'selective reporting' by Ellis is here demonstrably false.

193.82.99.130 16:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Simpsonworthing

Read again what is written. The reference is not to his "Folklore" article which few people will even know about, much less have read, but to "Raising the Devil" which does not contain any mention of the Daily Express case but bizarrely refers to the News of the World case which has no direct connection to the Highgate Vampire or Highgate Cemetery.

Vampire Research Society 14 July 2006

Yes, you are right, I hadn't thought about that. BTW, it's much easier to read if you post your comments as a separate paragraph, starting with a colon (or two colons, or three colons, depending on how many colons the previous comment had). The initial colons are invisible, but each moves the whole paragraph one step to the right, so that it's easier to see where a new comment begins. --194.145.161.227 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Like this. :) --194.145.161.227 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The libel case that Ellis mentions in his account is not related to what Farrant did at Highgate Cemetery, but the one Ellis fails to mention (even though he had been informed about it) is directly related. Farrant brought a libel action against the Daily Express for an article published by George Hunter and Richard Wright in that newspaper on 26 June 1974. He also brought actions against Canon Pierce Higgins who describes Farrant as "crazy" in an adjoining column by James Davies on the same page, and Dennis Wheatley who is quoted in Davies' column as saying: "I cannot believe for one moment that Farrant is a serious student of the occult. In fact I believe him to be evil and entirely to be deplored." This full page feature is a summary of the trials at the Old Bailey where Farrant was found guilty of tomb desecration and vandalism at Highgate Cemetery with background material on the culprit's career in black magic which culminated in him offering indignities to remains of the dead via such rites involving a naked female accomplice cavorting in a mausoleum where satanic symbols had been inscribed. Farrant lost his libel case against the Daily Express, Canon Pierce Higgins and Dennis Wheatley with £20,000 court costs being awarded against him. Dennis Wheatley sadly died during this case, possibly due to stress from the widespread sensational coverage it was receiving. Farrant later appealed against the outcome, but also lost his appeal. The £20,000 costs remain unpaid by Farrant who has not been in employment since his release from prison in 1976. Coverage of his appeal can be found in the Hornsey Journal, 16 November 1979, which court report opens with the words: "Self-styled 'high priest' David Farrant told a High Court jury this week of the night he performed a ritual sex act in an attempt to summon up a vampire in Highgate Cemetery. He also admitted that he had taken part in the 'sacrifice' of a stray cat in Highgate Wood." Regarding Simpson's speculation that "the trouble he got into was due to his activities in other graveyards," Farrant was found guilty in November 1972 of indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard at Barnet and was fined along with his female accomplice. The remainder of his "trouble" (Simpson's euphamism for his crimes) in graveyards centre on Highgate Cemetery and nowehere else.

Vampire Research Society 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to User:194.145.161.227 for seeing so clearly what the present wikipedia entry is doing, i.e. describing the origin and development of a legend. I have tried several times to explain this point to Manchester, both here* and in the correspondence between Penguins and him over the book Lore of the Land. Wikipedia has good entries on urban legend and legend tripping, and I hope cross-referencing to these will help readers to see how one can discuss the public excitement surrounding allegedly supernatural events from a sociological angle. The same user's proposed change of wording for the type of 'research' which Manchester and Farrant do would be quite acceptable to me, though whether they would agree is up to them. I will tone down my wording about the alternative possible explanation for the beheaded and burnt corpse in the cemetery in August 1970. Simpsonworthing 10:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (Jacqueline Simpson)

(*)Seán Manchester is not present on Wikipedia, but the international secretary of his research society is present and is posting corrections.** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

(**) And, surely, keeping his President informed?***

Simpsonworthing 17:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(***) Not so. These mundane arguments after all this time hold little interest for him, but others on his behalf will pursue misleading and inaccurate allegations, misrepresentation and defamation of character.

Vampire Research Society 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsonworthing 11:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Simpsonworthing:::: This is good news, though a little surprising. There were many letters, emails and phone calls from SM to Penguin's after publication of Lore of the Land in October 2005, and one or two letters to me, signed in his own hand.

I have just communicated with Seán Manchester about your allegation and he assures me that no letters were sent by him to your publisher and that such e-mails he did send over factual inaccuracy (in your brief entry about the Highgate Vampire in The Lore of the Land) were ignored, obliging him to speak to your editor on the telephone. This apparently led nowhere, which is why he dealt directly with yourself by just twice writing to your private address with identical concerns. On some of the points he raised, I understand certain changes were agreed to be made.

Vampire Research Society 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Space

I notice that some of the latest edits to the talk page are more or less spiteful remarks on the other editors' character and discussion of details about the personal relations between the editors. Please don't waste talk page space on such things and limit the discussion to the actual concrete edits to the article. The talk page is already longer than preferrable, even though I archived the previous discussion only a couple of days ago. This makes it difficult to even find the comments that are of practical significance for the editing of the article. Since there are still issues waiting to be solved, I can hardly archive the talk page again without disrupting the discussion. --194.145.161.227 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary results of the discussion above

Issues (3), (8) and (10) have hopefully been solved to everyone's satisfaction. Issues (4) and (6) are probably going to be solved when the copies of the press reports arrive. For (1) and (2), no consensus has been reached, but I more or less agree with User:Simpsonworthing (in principle, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy and a 2/3 majority isn't decisive, but it does influence things in practice). There is an on-going discussion about (7), (9) and (5) (I think a compromise is possible about (7) and (9), if we use Manchester's exact wording and leave it for the readers to decide whether it expresses "forcing" of doors or not).--194.145.161.227 19:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsonworthing 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)simpsonworthing:: Re press reports (points 4 and 6). The friend whom I have asked to take photocopies for me at the British Library has not yet replied (on holiday?), so we may have to wait a bit. I see (above) that the Vampire Research Society would only send by email, not snail mail, and I prefer to keep my email address private. If it turns out that Ellis got the chronology of the foxes wrong by one week, I'll willingly emend accordingly, but I'd be sorry to lose the foxes entirely, as they were verifiable material evidence reported at the time.

To user:Vampire Research Society: Please do not delete other people's comments. It is considered uncivil.

This was unintentional and occurred due to an edit conflict (two people editing at the same time).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

Re-inserted:

I agree that there is absolutely no reason to lose the foxes, and VRS doesn't want to remove them either - in fact, he pasted info about "animal carcasses drained of blood", too. I think VRS's problem is that according to the text, Manchester announced it himself. VRS claimed the vampirised foxes were a fact mentioned in independent accounts (and not just a sensationalist tabloid-style fable that SM invented in search of publicity). That should be checked.

As for the photocopies, VRS could upload them directly to Wikipedia if he wants to (there are instructions in wikipedia:uploading images). 194.145.161.227 18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpson is absolutely right when she says that the exsanguinated foxes are important, but the whole point is that Ellis constantly attributes incidents, reports and even court cases inaccurately in his published works and is therefore not a reliable source for such matters.

Vampire Research Society 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So far, nothing of that has been proved. But surely you can help us fix such inaccuracies, if you find more of them. The basic essence of the article will, however, remain the same, and it's really its essence you don't like, isn't it? But you can't prove that vampires exist or that Manchester is telling the truth by pointing out one hundred tiny details of this sort. --194.145.161.227 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsonworthing 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)simpsonworthing:: Re point 7. My text quite clearly says "Failing in this", i.e. in the attempt to open the door of the catacomb, SM and friends got in by an opening in its roof. I can see no disagreemnt at all about point 7. As for point 9, I fear SM's text if quoted in full would be too long and emotional for an encyclopedia entry, but I can include the point that the door was heavy and rusty. "Inch by inch" is quoted from one of Crawford's previous mailings here, where it was presented as being from SM's account.

To user:Vampire Research Society: please do not delete other people's comments. It is considered uncivil.

This was unintentional and occurred due to an edit conflict (two people editing at the same time).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

Re-inserted:

I think that the disagreement in (7) is about your text using the word "break open". I guess VRS feels that it sounds too burglar-like (as with the "forcing" in (9)). I don't know, I'm not so confident in my English regarding this point.

As for (5) (Manchester's announcing that the hunt would take place on Friday the 13th), I think it should be changed for the time being. Judging from the above discussion, the evidence seems to be rather circumstantial.194.145.161.227 18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The door was not "forced" and nowhere is it suggested that it was forced, a word which suggests intense, violent effort. Objection is to this word which suggests a forced entry when, in fact, the door was unlocked and the only resistance was due to its weight, age and accumulation of rust. One could argue that using "forced" is emotive.

Vampire Research Society 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the disagreement in (7) is about your text using the word "break open". I guess VRS feels that it sounds too burglar-like (as with the "forcing" in (9)). I don't know, I'm not so confident in my English regarding this point.

As for (5) (Manchester's announcing that the hunt would take place on Friday the 13th), I think it should be changed for the time being. Judging from the above discussion, the evidence seems to be rather circumstantial. --194.145.161.227 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if your own definition is to be accepted, I can't agree with you. Opening doors which "would not bulge", "inch by inch" etc. necessarily involves intense, violent effort.--194.145.161.227 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsonworthing 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)simpsonworthing:::::"intense violent effort" was exactly the impression I got when I read SM's book. However, I could say "dragged at" or "thrust at", according to whether the door opened inwards or outwards. [Incidentally, I find it rather shocking to learn that vaults at Highgate were unlocked, and I'm glad none of my family are buried there!] As for foxes, I certainly did not mean to imply SM invented them, they were reported by others as well, and the presence of fox corpses is (alas) all too common in urban cemeteries and wasteland. If VRS tell us that's what the problem is (though VRS didn't say that, merely quibbled about the date), I'll reword.

Otherwise Simpson is quite content to allow the wrongly attributed source to stand?!! Is this is how so-called "scholars" operate?

Vampire Research Society 13 July 2006

Simpsonworthing 09:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)simpsonworthing comment:::: To VRS: If you mean the source for the foxes, I have already said that if I find they were not mentioned in the issue of 27/2/70 I will change the reference. Do read before you complain! In response to the other's user's comment that 'break open' sounds burglarious, I have today changed it to simply 'open', and added the detail that it would not budge an inch (from SM 1991). In deference to wikipedia policy about personal opinions, I have removed my suggestion that would-be vampire-slayers decapitated and burnt that woman's body. I still think that SM's wording "it only remained for me to announce ... [the hunt of 13/3/70]" sounds more like a public announcement than privately contacting associates, but so be it, I'll clarify the wording.

Preliminary results - 2

Now, only (1), (2), (4) and (6) remain. For (1) and (2), I agree with user:Simpsonworthing. (4) and (6) are purely factual issues, and we'll have to wait for them. --194.145.161.227 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsonworthing 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)simpsonworthing::As a second line of approach, I've emailed the HHE under its present name HamandHigh to ask if they can supply photocopies. JS

Simpsonworthing 09:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Simpsonworthing. The friend I had asked to go to British Library press archives for me says he won't be in London for some weeks, perhaps not till autumn, but has told me how to contact the BL's own photocopying service. I'll do so next week. One way or another, I will find out exactly what the papers printed on the relevant dates.

And all because Simpson does not want to receive copies from the Vampire Research Society who, incidentally, have no means of communication apart from the internet. Seán Manchester has Simpson's private snail mail address and telephone number, but will not reveal them as it would be a breach of confidentiality. Like the VRS, he does not have her e-mail address. We have no method of forwarding the press cuttings of the relevant newspaper articles from 1970, and find it most curious that Simpson would rather not let us have her e-mail address than receive confirmation of what has been pointed out to be erroneous.

Vampire Research Society 15 July 2006

User:Simpsonworthing. And what I find curious is that the VRS said it couldn't produce anything except by displaying it on the internet by email. All this Highgate business was going on in the 1970s, long before the internet arrived, so the VRS's archives must consist of actual press cuttings. If they want to send me the information thmselves, why not simply photocopy the page(s) at the nearest public library (5p per page, in mine) and send it by post? This is a very simple, if old-fashioned, method, and has the advantage of producing a permanent, fileable, document which is easy to read. JS

The Vampire Research Society said nothing of the kind. What it originally said is that it is prepared to forward the documents as jpeg images by e-mail to Jacqueline Simpson. She retorted that she would not allow her e-mail address to be known. She is apparently not bothered in quite the same way about her private residential address which I find somewhat puzzling. Surely one would guard their home address far more than an e-mail account that could be easily changed. One wonders where this e-mail address springs from? Could it be the International Society for Contemporary Legend Research or perhaps something more prosaic?

The Vampire Research Society does not have Simpson's home address. Seán Manchester does, but he treats private addresses as confidential and not appropriate data to disseminate. He would not want any of his private addresses passed on in a similar manner. If Simpson would care to write to him and explain that the Vampire Research Society has her consent (and enclose a stamped, self-addressed A5 size envelope, as the VRS is a non-profit organisation with very limited funds) photocopies of newspaper reports can be made available upon specific request. I cannot be fairer than that, and it is always the Vampire Research Society which has to do all the running. Simpson expects to be taken at her word. It is rather a shame that she does not accept the word of other researchers.

Vampire Research Society 18 July 2006

Simpsonworthing 17:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Simpsonworthing. I see today (18 July) that insertions have again appeared in the article, despite it being semi-protected. These include SM's characteristic jibes about Farrant's arrest, which are irrelvant to the article and priobably infring wikipedia's policies. I also note that the 'edit' facility (previously open to me) has disappeared. I trust the moderators of wikipedia will cope with this.

I'm not too knowledgeable about such technical issues, but I don't see how the edit facility can have disappeared for you if it was ever available in the first place. If you have never registered as a user, it is strange that you did have access to the semi-protected article before. In that case, you should register (create an account) in order to be able to continue editing this article. Even then, it is likely that you will have to wait a little, just as VRS did. If that doesn't help, I guess you should request assistance from a specific administrator, on his/her talk page (see Wikipedia:List of administrators) or at the Wikipedia:Village Pump. --194.145.161.227 00:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsonworthing 09:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Simpsonworthing. It must have been just a technical blip, or maybe something I failed to do, because later that day it was OK again. Yes, I am registered, and have been since May. JS

On the minor issue of mailing -- SM has had my home address from about 10 years back, before I got email. My email address is wholly my own, not that of any society. And I'm not asking VRS to 'make all the running' -- on the contrary, I'm using the public resource of the British Library and/or the newspaper archives, as has been made perfectly clear here. It was the VRS themselves who volunteered earlier on that they had material, but could only make it available in internet form by email. Their message to this effect is in these archives.

It is noted that you have not confirmed whether you will contact Seán Manchester and provide him with the consent mentioned previously. The Vampire Research Society obviously prefers the speed and convenience of archive material being communicated via e-mail. Even your own colleague Bill Ellis has received documentary material from the Vampire Research Society using this method. He has had no problems. Why should you?

Vampire Research Society 18 July 2006

Simpsonworthing 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)User:Simpsonworthing. No, I will not. Since you insist on knowing why, it's because once SM gets going he never, never stops. I fear that he and/or the VRS would clog up my mailbox with unwanted messages, just as he used to send me unsolicited papers about himself, and Farrant, etc through the post. It's all very well for academics like Ellis, who use university facilities, but I have the one email address for both work and personal matters, so, I have 'keep out' notices. Secondly, as I've already set about getting photocopies through the proper channels, why should I need another set? Have the ones in the VRS archives been edited in some way, that they should be so keen for me to use those and no others? Just a thought!

Jacqueline Simpson is now showing her undisguised, true colours by making slurs and publishing outright falsehood. Seán Manchester uses the internet very little. He has not bombarded Simpson with snail mail about himself and Farrant. What he did a decade ago was provide evidence in the public annals regarding the catalogue of error in Bill Ellis' "Folklore" article at her own invitation (she was the editor of the journal in the year the article was published). These documents would have included reference to Farrant only because Ellis' article is crammed with error concerning Farrant (some of it libellous, which Ellis accepted and did not retain for his book) and also error of omission. To suggest press cuttings forwarded from the VRS archive might be "edited in some way" reflects a mindset closer to the paranoia of Farrant than that of a self-professed "scholar" and "academic." This is the person we are obliged to contend with for a distorted entry in Wikipedia on the Highgate Vampire case about which she clearly knows precious little.

Vampire Research Society 19 July 2006

Simpsonworthing 18:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Simpsonworthing: The press cuttings have arrived, and yes indeed, the dead foxes were first reported on 6/3/70, by Farrant. I have adjusted accordingly. Also, the 'Evening News' report of the 13 March hunt doesn't mention the police at all! Ellis must have read about police activity in some other paper and forgotten to give his reference. However, as both SM and DF agree that police were indeed present that night (as is obviously likely) I have mentioned this, though no longer saying they expelled any intruders. Well, that's points (4) and (6) settled. Jacqueline Simpson

Comments by members of The Highgate Vampire Society

I feel as though I am having deja vu ! Jaqueline Simpson should not worry. SM does this sort of thing to anyone who writes anything with his name in it! He always makes an almighty fuss, says the author has got it wrong and threatens to sue. I should know ! He did this a few years ago with me over my book SECRETS OF THE GRAVE which involved him going on a vampire hunt at Robin Hoods Grave---but its a long, very long story. If you want more infor have a look on www.robinhoodyorkshire.co.uk barbara green yorkshire robin hood society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.185.39 (talk • contribs)

[Please read this

This is supposed to be a discussion about a Wikipedia entry, not an opportunity for advertising websites and books about Robin Hood which has nothing to do with the topic. You are contravening Wikipedia rules.

Vampire Research Society 20 July 2006

I agree with Barbara Green, I am the Secretary of both the Highgate Vampire Society/The British Psychic and Occult Society and the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society so feel that it is my responsibilty to give people the correct information. With regards to certain people threatening to sue, as Barbara has said I wouldn't worry about this. "Dennis Crawford", " Vampire Research Society", "Katrina Garforth-Bles" and "Michael Thane" (Who claims that he is SM's legal representative but who hides behind a PO Box, and is not a genuine Solicitor, I might add. We have written documentation from the Law Society) are all obviously one and the same. If you check the IP numbers you will see this. We are also in contact with the Old Catholic Church (UK) who are helping us with our investigations into various matters and will also help with our own legal matters. Should you wish to have any further information Jaquline please do not hesitate to email me at dfplcatherine@yahoo.co.uk Catherine Fearnley, Secretary of the YRHS, BPOS and HVS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.185.39 (talk • contribs)

Please read this

This is supposed to be a discussion about a Wikipedia entry, not a platform to pursue hate campaigns and advertise e-mail addresses for that purpose. You are contravening Wikipedia rules.

Vampire Research Society 20 July 2006

For the 'Vampire Research Society'. Is it not you yourselves who is using Wikipedia for a hate campaign against David Farrant and Jaquline Simpson. You are aware that I am the Secretary of David's Society's and his partner so I feel that it is my responsiblity to provide people with the correct information. What do you want Jaquline Simpson to do? What has she written that is so terrible or is it because it is mainly David's side of the story and you feel as though you should have the main contributer. You are the Old Catholic Church's answer to Nicky on Big Brother, in other words " I don't like it and I'm going to cry and scream". Oh and on the other side, we have proof from the Old Catholic Church that you are only linked to them, you are not a 'bishop' of the Old Catholic Church so see how you like that. And yes should anyone wish to see the emails that I have from the Old Catholic Church then they can gladly do so as I still have them as proper evidence and can produce these if people ask.

Catherine Fearnley Secretary for the BPOS/HVS/YRHS and if there is any more carry on, then do not worry we can always delete the whole page unless someone decides to lock the thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.185.39 (talk • contribs)

No you can't do anything like that and you're not supposed to. I don't know whuch page you want to delete, but if you do that, that will be vandalism and your IPs will be blocked from editing, while the page will be restored to the original version. --Anonymous44 15:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Vampire Research Society is not conducting any campaign other than to have corrections made to erroneous data in the Wikipedia entry (using material that already exists in the public annals). Jacqueline Simpson has agreed to this. What the Vampire Research Society or Jacqueline Simpson do is certainly none of Fearnley's business, bearing in mind she was not even alive when the Highgate Vampire case was under investigation. Whatever her motives are for jumping on this particular bandwagon, they cannot be good ones. She has spammed abuse across the internet along with her accomplice Green. Together they have become cyber stalkers who attempt to harass and malign the president of the Vampire Research Society who thankfully remains for the most part completely oblivious of their puerile and neurotic behaviour.

There is no "BPOS" and there is no "HVS." Fearnley is the "secretary" of a non-existent membership. If either society did exist, why have none of its members joined the multifarious message boards and forums (created by Fearnley to proliferate Farrant's pernicious propaganda) which have cropped up on an almost weekly basis for the last couple of years?

Fearnley's empty threats to "delete the whole page" and her introduction of totally irrelevant material, ie Old Catholicism, will only serve to have her banned for ignoring Wikepidea's terms of use.

Vampire Research Society 20 July 2006

Just to follow that up, SM is like a bull in a china shop. Someone writes a perfectly okay article or paragraph about him somewhere and he sniffs it out like a bloodhound and then goes off his rocker like an geriatric Nikki off Big Brother stomping around saying "I don't like it!!!" and "I'm going to gave your guts for garters!" and then threatening people who have no idea that he is all wind and water. Don't worry, Jaqueline, leave your book as it is and tell your publishers to tell him to get lost. We have seen what a lot of nonsence his book about killing a vampire is anyway, there are more holes in his story than there is in a colindar and he is rushing round madly trying to plug all the leaks, Barbara ps this is not a hate campaign , it is simply giving support to someone against a big bad playground bully! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.185.39 (talk • contribs)

• Please read this

All this from a woman who told her local newspaper that she had seen a vampire, ie "Like a bat she hung there for what seemed like an eternity, her black nun's robes flapping eerily while her eyes flashed red and venomous and her teeth bared sharp and white between snarling blood-red lips." (Brighouse Echo, 12 November 1995)

A not untypical post from her on the internet claims: "I read that you were looking for a yorkshire vampire--look no further! To find the yorkshire vampire at kirklees ... etc"

• Link to above quote

In the 2001 edition of her "Secrets of the Grave" booklet she wrote: "“I should have taken Seán [Manchester]’s advice at the time, but [John Pope de] Locksley said that there was no truth in the allegations [that Pope practiced the black arts] and that he [in fact, claimed to be] a practising [Roman] Catholic.” John Pope de Locksley describes himself as a “master of the black arts” on his website that was launched around the same time that she published her "Secrets of the Grave." He is unequivocal about this, and includes photographs of himself in his sorcerer’s garb. In the past Pope de Locksley, an associate of David Farrant (who put him in charge of the "junior department of the 'Highgate Vampire Society'") has described himself as the “Master Therion,” the “Spiritual Son of Aleister Crowley,” the “Imperial Toad,” the “Black Pope,” and the “Son of the Beast.” He has never described himself as a “Catholic.”

Vampire Research Society 20 July 2006

I don't know what it is, but all of you should stop this. If you try to do the same group bullying that you did in Alex Lucard's live journal ([insidepulse.com/upload/lucard/Thread%206.htm]), you will most certainly be blocked. User:Vampire Research Society makes a good point when he says that this is a place for discussion of an article and not for personal attacks (even though he is making similar personal attacks himself all the time). If you can suggest how the article can be improved in accordance with Wikipedia's policies (above all WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR), do it. But please don't waste more space on this talk page by discussing Manchester's character. --Anonymous44 15:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We did not do 'group bullying' as you suggest. You are going under 'anonymous' at least we have the guts to put our own name to our posts. And besides if Alex Lucard had not started a similar thing then this would not be happening. If no message boards on the internet start threads on the Highgate Vampire then this would not be happening, it is the same all over. We like it that the 'Vampire Research Society' are allowed to fill message boards and discussion threads with libellous comments about David Farrant (my boyfriend) and we are not allowed to post our own comments back. That is not really fair as far as we are concerned. Why is it that the 'Vampire Research Society' can post what they like about us and it isn't classed as a hate campaign but when we or someone else posts up rebuttals on our behalf it is classed as one. And what we were doing was only giving support to Jacquline Simpson who seems to have gone quiet all of a sudden but that is fine with us. We can handle anything what the 'Vampire Research Society' posts about ourselves anyway. We've had many years of practice. Besides which, is not Manchester who is discussing our character and libelling us? Also on this message board it quite clearly says that it is locked due to certain people 'tampering' with the site. If nobody likes what we are saying on here then why not lock this thread also, or delete it's contents. Catherine Fearnley Secretary YRHS/BPOS/THVS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.185.39 (talk • contribs)

Please read this

Try and understand that the Vampire Research Society has no interest in you or your boyfriend of the last two years. That is why you will find virtually no mention of either of you on our forums that have an approximate collective membership of well in excess of a thousand subscribers. Your boards, blogs and forums, on the other hand, are entirely obsessed with fabricating malicious falsehood against the founding president of the Vampire Research Society. Anyone who visits just one of them randomly will have this confirmed. You are a minor irritation to a number of people against whom you have taken a strong dislike. You are best ignored, but I am reasonably confident your constant contravening of harassment and defamation law will not be ignored in perpetuity by the relevant authorities.

Vampire Research Society 20 July 2006

Oh God. Here we go again. This had almost started to turn into a normal productive discussion page, at least seemingly. Now it's a mayhem again. BTW, I think all of you should stop using the word "libel" if you can't prove that what the other person has said is false. Anyway, I give up, I'm not going to get involved in this "discussion". (that doesn't mean that personal attacks won't lead to the perpetrators being blocked, eventually). --Anonymous44 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well at least it has got him off Jaqueline Simpsons back! The only bullying and harrassment going on round here is from Bishop Bigmouth's haranguing this poor woman anyway,who probabaly thought she was doing him a favour mentioning his stupid vamppire that never existed in the first place, in ehr book ! we only stepped in the lend a hand and assure her he carries on like this with everyone! barbara BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.185.39 (talk • contribs)

Please read this

Your intervention wasn't necessary, the situation was more or less under control. It would be better if you could argue with him on another forum. Also, note that calling him "Bishop Bigmouth" was an obvious personal attack (you have been sent a personal message about that). --194.145.161.227 17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Green and Fearnley have made the case for the Vampire Research Society with precisely the sort of attacks now manifesting here. They are Farrant's allies and reflect the true nature of a trio who spend every day of their lives posting abuse on the net about someone they know nothing about. Anyone sympathetic to their intended victim is falsely accused of being him, irrespective of their age, gender, belief or status. One sad aspect is that nothing productive ever results when their persistent cyber stalking makes discovery of the presence of the Vampire Research Society on a website. Often their intrusion lead to boards and/or topics becoming disabled at worst, or redundant and abandoned at best. Such is their contribution to the word wide web.

Vampire Research Society 20 July 2006

I WAS REALLY THERE! Everyone else seems to be giving views here - except myself! After all, I was at the centre of the Highgate 'vampire' case back in late 1969/early 70's so really know the true facts far better than some of the 'people' (really that should be in the singular) posting here who were not even there at the time. I am not even going to attempt to retell the whole story here. But I will answer any short queries if anybody has any short questions. But I do not really want to go into unimportant trivialities (as the 'VRS' seem to be doing). Yet if anyone wants clarification about anything, then please just ask. David Farrant, President, The British Psychic and Occult Society/The Highgate Vampire Society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.161.227 (talk • contribs)

Thank you, but we aren't discussing views here, we are just trying to make an informative article. Your book about the case has been used, and I think everybody here has read your version of the events on your website. That said, you might want to address some of the accusations that VRS has directed at you on this talk page (just search for "Farrant"). Brevity would be appreciated, as the talk page is already too long and we are going to have to archive most of it soon. --194.145.161.227 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

David Farrant says he was "really there." Yet he could not have been "there" when he was living abroad in 1966 and 1967. He could not have been "there" when he was on remand in jail and later serving a lengthy prison sentence. And he could not have been "there" when he was patronising his customary haunts, ie local pubs in and around Highgate.

“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)

Farrant was certainly in Highgate Cemetery on the night he joined Barrie Simmons, a newspaper reporter, for a "midnight date with Highgate's Vampire" as recorded in the London Evening News, 16 October 1970:

"I joined a macabre hunt among the desecrated graves and tombs for the vampire of Highgate Cemetery. ... David Farrant, 24, was all set, kitted out with all the gear required by any self-respecting vampire hunter. Clutched under his arm, in a Sainsbury's carrier bag, he held the tools of his trade. There was a cross made out of two bits of wood tied together with a shoelace and a stake to plunge through the heart of the beast. Vampire hunting is a great art. There is no point in just standing around waiting for the monster to appear. It must be stalked. So we stalked. Cross in one hand to ward off the evil spirits, stake in the other, held at the ready. Farrant stalked among the vaults, past the graves, in the bushes and by the walls. When we had finished he started stalking all over again."

And, of course, Farrant was really "there" when he was arrested in August 1970 by police searching for black magic devotees in Highgate Cemetery. They found in his possession a wooden stake and cross. Farrant, however, was not charged with "vampire hunting" when he appeared at Clerkenwell Court. He was charged with "being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose." The magistrate was obliged to acquit Farrant of that charge because it was apparent to all present, not least defending solictor Mr Jeffrey Bayes, that Highgate Cemetery by any stretch of the imagination cannot be described as "an enclosed area." This technicality secured Farrant's release in 1970. However, we should also remind ourselves of what the magistrate, Mr J D Purcell, said when Farrant first appeared before him: "You should be seen by a doctor."

In 1987 Farrant appeared to admit to being responsible for a "hoax." The newspaper in question was the Finchley Advertiser which on 30 July 1987 (based on an interview with Farrant) claimed that he started "rumours of a vampiric haunting" in 1970, concluding with these words: "Mr Farrant supported the vampire theory in the local and national press, but now concedes the idea was 'just pure fiction'."

Now he is attempting to manufacture a new scare that the Highgate Vampire is active again in the cemetery. Yet not a scrap of evidence is provided. No witnesses are identified. No testimony can be checked. Not one person has independently come forward to verify such a claim which remains the fodder of newspaper hacks who have been fed this latter-day attempt to jump on the bandwagon of the Highgate Vampire by the same man who did so thirty-six years ago with disastrous consequences.

• "Farrant said: 'The sighting of a tall, black figure in April (2005) on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again. On my visit, I saw the bricked-up vault, which some occultists say is inhabited by the vampire. I am not really welcomed at the cemetery'."

Vampire Research Society 21 July 2006

RE. I WAS REALLY THERE

When I said I would answer any short queries about the Highgate 'vampire' case here 'VRS' (we all know who you really are of course!,* I did NOT mean that I would be prepared to enter into a 'public slagging match' to answer the usual cut and paste accusations that you have plastered all over the world wide web.*

What has my visit to France and Spain in 1966 got to do with the Highgate case, for example? As a matter of record I returned from Spain in January 1967 with my wife to be; in fact, we had to as we had over-stayed the 6 month time limit which then applied to visitors. I have a stamp on my passport to prove this; but this is really irrevalant to the unexplained phenomenon (NOT a vampire) reported in and around Highgate Cemetery in the late 1960's/early 1970's.

You quote my wife's eveidence at the Old Bailey in 1974. Again, this has been taked out of all context and you are only quoting from a selected newspaper report - just as you are accusing Bill Ellis of doing I should add. As a matter of record Mary (my first wife) saw how serious the whole police version of events was becoming and she tried to 'make light' of their accusations against myself relating to 'Satanisn', 'black magin', 'naked witchcraft orgies', etc. But again, this has absolutely no relevance to the actual appearances of the psychic entity reported in and arounf Highgate Cemetery.

But back to the relevant facts: I notice that you say earlier that police did not evict anybody from Highgate Cemetery on the night of Friday 13 1970 following my television appearance when another man stated that I intended to return to the cemetery that night to 'stake a vampire'. Are you being serious? Highgate cemetery was surrounded by police cars that night and police were patrolling inside and outside the cemetery with dogs. Hundreds of sightseers turned up (many later when the local pubs closed) all to witness a non-existant vampire hunt. (I had never stated that I intended to 'stake the vampire', this statement was attributed to myself by another man being interviewed who produced a wooded stake and a crucifix and said on the programme that the only sure way to destroy a vampire was to 'stake it through the heart, 'cut off its head with a grave-digger's shovel' and 'burn what remained').

I sent some people down to the cemetery that night for a record of what was actually going on. One of these people asked a to a police officer if there really was a 'vampire' in the cemetery. The police officer replied that he 'didn't know' but if there was, it would be arrested along with anyone else in there!

Needless to say, I kept well away from Highgate Cemetery that night. The conditions were just not right (as I stated at the time) to hold any serious sort of psychic investigation.

David Farrant, President, BPOS/HVS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.103.16 (talk • contribs) (*)Please read this

"What has my visit to France and Spain in 1966 got to do with the Highgate case, for example? As a matter of record I returned from Spain in January 1967 with my wife to be." (Farrant)

It negates your past claims to have been forming the "British Psychic and Occult Society" and investigating the Highgate Vampire in 1967. The Vampire Research Society has a recorded interview from the 1970s where you clearly indicate that you returned from France with your fiancee in the summer of 1967 and married in a Roman Catholic Church in that August. In June 1974 your wife testified that she knew nothing about occult societies, psychic investigations and such like when she was with you, stating that your visits at night to Highgate Cemetery were "just a silly sort of thing that you do after the pubs shut for a bit of a laugh and a giggle."

"This has been taked out of all context and you are only quoting from a selected newspaper report." (Farrant)

That court report appeared in at least five different newspapers. If you have a press report of your wife's testimony which contradicts what has been reproduced above, please provide the name of the newspaper and its date. An image of such a press cutting is also invited (to be sent to the e-mail address of the Vampire Research). I suspect it will be a very long time in arriving and that no such report will materialise.

"This has absolutely no relevance to the actual appearances of the psychic entity reported in and arounf [sic] Highgate Cemetery." (Farrant)

Neither does Old Catholicism but your "secretary/girlfriend" somehow managed to drag that irrelevance into the equation. However, I think your wife stating under oath that your ventures to Highgate Cemetery in 1968 and 1969 were for "a bit of a laugh and a giggle" are very relevant. They demonstrate that you were not involved in an investigation and that you were unaware of the supernatural phenomenon which came to be known as the Highgate Vampire. People entering graveyards for a giggle can still cause damage. Your reasons for entering the cemetery are not so important as to whether you vandalised the place when you were roaming about after the pubs had closed with your wife and anyone else who accompanied you. That was why you called your wife as a defence witness and to that end she proved useful.

"Highgate cemetery was surrounded by police cars that night and police were patrolling inside and outside the cemetery with dogs." (Farrant)

You were not there. You were drinking in the Prince of Wales pub throughout the entire evening, which is where Alan Blood discovered you before he joined the crowd in Swains Lane. Highgate Cemetery was indeed surrounded by police and dog handlers on the night of 13 March 1970. None, however, entered the cemetery. At least, not while the mass vampire hunt was in progress. I am talking about the crowds who had clambered over the gate and wall with improvised vampire hunting kits; not the official vampire hunt organised by the Vampire Research Society.

"I had never stated that I intended to 'stake the vampire', this statement was attributed to myself by another man." (Farrant)

You told the president of the British Occult Society (1862-1988) that you intended to seek out the vampire and destroy it that very week. There is an interview (recorded some years later) where you confirm this. The mayhem caused by all the media attention clearly made quaffing ale in the Prince of Wales a more attractive alternative on the night itself. Five months later, however, you attempted to carry out your vampire hunt, as recorded in The Sun, 19 August 1970:

"A man armed with a wooden stake and a cross went on a vampire hunt in a cemetery. But all he found were police. And they arrested him. David Farrant, aged 24, told magistrates at Clerkenwell, London, yesterday: “My intention was to search out the supernatural being and destroy it by plunging the stake in its heart.” Farrant, unemployed and of no fixed address, pleaded guilty to entering enclosed premises ~ Highgate Cemetery ~ for unlawful purposes. Detective-Sergeant Neville Brown ~ who showed the court a large wooden crucifix attached to a piece of rope and a wooden stake ~ said Farrant had heard talk of the vampire of Highgate Cemetery. He heard that it rose from a grave and wandered the cemetery “on the lookout for human beings on whose blood it thrives.” Farrant was remanded in custody for reports until September 8."

The above report appeared in The Sun. Similar reports appeared in the Evening Standard, 18 August 1970, and the Evening News, 18 August 1970. A photograph of you as a lone vampire hunter with a wooden stake raised above your head, clasped in both hands, while wearing a rosary and crucifix, was published in the Evening News, 29 September 1970.

• Recording where the intention to stake the vampire is confirmed by Farrant during an interview

Vampire Research Society 21 July 2006

I am not an "ally" or in league with anyone. I speak entirely for myself, and I speak from my own less than constructive--from my point of view--contact with the vampire hunting bishop in question. I just felt, as a fellow author who has been down the same road, Jaqueline was being subjected to more bombardment about her work than was necessary. I hope the usual boring stuff about who discovered the Highgate Vampire/ Ghost will not be allowed to take over this board. Respectfully bg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.185.39 (talk • contribs)

RE: I WAS REALLY THERE

Again ‘VRS’ (Aka. Mr M) you are wandering way off the point. I can do better than produce newspaper reports of my Old Bailey trial; I have most of the transcripts and original witness statements. You do not Neither were you present in Court so you only have sensational newspaper reports upon which to rely. At least Bill Ellis also personally interviewed several other people.

The statement you quote by the police supposedly confessing to ‘hunting a vampire’ was untrue. I denied making this statement in Court. The Court accepted my explanation that this statement had been fabricated and I was subsequently acquitted – as in ‘not guilty’. Yes there was a piece of string (not rope) around the ‘stake’. This was because it was intended to be used as a ‘marker’ to draw a protective Circle on the ground

You state that I was in the Prince of Wales pub on the night of the alleged ‘vampire hunt’ where I met Alan Blood. But how do YOU know that when you were not even there? This is mere conjecture on your part. As a matter of interest, I did meet AB in that pub but was only in there for 30-45 minutes or so.

There was no organised ‘vampire hunt’ at Highgate Cemetery that night on March 13th 1970. There was pandomonian at Highgate Cemetery admittedly with police evicting drunken yobs and hooligans – but no ‘vampire hunt’. This was a fictional story invented some 15 years later for the purposes of a self-published book. And YOU are well aware of this fact.

For now,

David Farrant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.103.16 (talk • contribs) Please read this

"I WAS REALLY THERE" (Farrant)

By repeatedly heading his remarks in capital letters with the words "I WAS REALLY THERE" one gets the distinct impression that Farrant is trying to convince himself of something he knows to be untrue. Demonstrably Farrant was not there save for when he accompanied a newspaper reporter on a nocturnal visit to Highgate Cemetery in 1970 to pose for photographs holding a cross and stake that were published in the London Evening News on 16 October 1970 under the heading "My Midnight Date with Highgate's Vampire," and when he was arrested by police in the same graveyard on the night of 17 August 1970. However, neither of these occasions constitute Farrant "being there" in terms of the ongoing investigation into the Highgate Vampire by the British Occult Society and its fledgling Vampire Research Society (formerly a unit within the BOS which had become autonomous on 2 February 1970).

"‘VRS’ (Aka. Mr M)" (Farrant)

Farant's old, tired tactic of trying to claim anyone who opposes him must and can only have a surname that begins with "M." (Mine, for the record, does not.) My identity has nothing to do with the matter under discussion which is the Highgate Vampire according to Simpson and Ellis.

"I have most of the transcripts and original witness statements." (Farrant)

So clearly you cannot provide a court report published by the print media which is any different to the one already reproduced by the Vampire Research Society. You are invited to quote directly from the original witness statement made by your wife in relation to your visits to Highgate Cemetery after the pubs had closed. Please do not paraphrase, but rather give exact quotes as they were spoken.

"Neither were you present in Court so you only have sensational newspaper reports upon which to rely." (Farrant)

You have no knowledge of whether or not I was at the Old Bailey during your trials. For the record, I was in the public gallery during some of them. Not that you would have been aware of this. I would not have been someone you would have recognised even if you inspected all who were observing from the gallery.

"At least Bill Ellis also personally interviewed several other people." (Farrant)

Bill Ellis interviewed nobody involved in the investigation of the case of the Highgate Vampire. This much Ellis himself now concedes.

"The statement you quote by the police supposedly confessing to ‘hunting a vampire’ was untrue. I denied making this statement in Court. The Court accepted my explanation that this statement had been fabricated and I was subsequently acquitted – as in ‘not guilty’. Yes there was a piece of string (not rope) around the ‘stake’. This was because it was intended to be used as a ‘marker’ to draw a protective Circle on the ground." (Farrant)

The court did not accept your explanation that the police statement was fabricated. You were acquitted solely because you had been charged with being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose and Highgate Cemetery was ruled by the magistrate to not qualify as an enclosed area.

When you came to reconstruct the event of your arrest on the night of 17 August 1970 for the BBC television programme "24 Hours" you did so by stalking among the tombs with a cross in one hand, a wooden stake in the other and a Roman Catholic rosary suspended around your neck. The narration and the subsequent interview confirms that you were vampire hunting on the night of your arrest. There was no mention by you of protective circles and neither were there any denials of what you intended to do with the wooden stake. The denials we are hearing now took twenty-one years to manifest in the first edition of your self-published booklet "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" where a stolen picture of the VRS president appears along with no less than fifty stolen lines of text from "The Highgate Vampire" (British Occult Society, 1985)."

"You state that I was in the Prince of Wales pub on the night of the alleged ‘vampire hunt’ where I met Alan Blood. But how do YOU know that when you were not even there? This is mere conjecture on your part." (Farrant)

It is not "conjecture" because plenty of people were there on that night and among them are those who I spoke to who confirmed you were also there all evening until closing time. This is academic as you do not deny that you were in the Prince of Wales and took no part in what was going on in Swains Lane and Highgate Cemetery on 13 March 1970.

"There was no organised ‘vampire hunt’ at Highgate Cemetery that night on March 13th 1970." (Farrant)

Unlike you, Farrant, I really was there, which is why I can categorically affirm that an organised vampire hunt did take place.

Vampire Research Society 22 July 2006

Ho Lee Fook This thread has got into incredible hair-splitting, for instance, whether the report of dead foxes being found in Highgate Cemetery first appeared in the ‘Ham-and-High’ on 27 February 1970, or, the correct date, the 6 March. One of the few things that Manchester and Farrant do not disagree about is that dead foxes were found in the cemetery at this time, so why the argument? As to the accuracy of Bill Ellis, I have only noticed one serious error in his article, that at the end of his quotation of Farrant’s original letter about the spectre, he added a totally erroneous sentence beginning “I have no knowledge in this field…” which Farrant never wrote. Strangely, whilst the VRS keep criticising Ellis, elsewhere they have upheld his work on this point – I suggest Jacqueline Simpson go ahead and check the original newspaper cuttings, by the way, I doubt if the VRS could doctor them to the extent that they included this imaginary sentence. It is claimed by the Vampire Research Society – was it Dennis Crawford? – that Manchester did not make any of the VRS postings, as the arguments “hold little interest for him”, and obviously during this hot weather his attention is mainly held by the bikini-clad bathing beauties on Bournemouth beach, but it is curious that his defenders all have the exact same writing style as their hero. Gareth J. Medway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.170.171 (talk • contribs) Please read this

"He added a totally erroneous sentence beginning “I have no knowledge in this field…” which Farrant never wrote." (attributed to "Medway")

Farrant wrote in Mystery Magazine's online forum, 7 October 2003:

“Yes. I certainly said ‘I have no knowledge in this field’. But I was referring to common stories circulating at the time that the entity or apparition must be a ‘blood sucking vampire’. I did not accept this at the time ~ and still don't. Many people responded about the ‘ghost side of things’ without feeling obliged to enter into meaningless correspondence about a ‘blood-sucking’ vampire. So yes, it is true that I ‘have no knowledge’ in the field of blood-sucking vampires. How could I? I do not even accept that these exist.”

It is curious that "Medway" would claim that Farrant "never wrote" that he had "no knowledge in this field" when Farrant himself says he did. If anyone is in doubt they should acquire a copy of the readers' letters column page of the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 February 1970.

The remainder of "Medway's" contribution has nothing to do with the matter under discussion and amounts to personal attacks on someone who is not present. Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Obviously people of a certain generation and education will elucidate in a similar way, especially where they have known each other for many years. Equally one could argue that Green's and Fearnley's contributions are in the same writing style. They certainly originate from the same computer. Yet there is little doubt that Green and Fearnley are not the same person.

I understand that the real Gareth J Medway does not have a computer and does not use the internet.

Vampire Research Society 22 July 2006

I WAS REALLY THERE

If anybody is making personal attacks here it is YOU Mr. M hiding behind the label of the ‘VRS’. I would invite any moderator here to check the IP number of all of your unfounded postings, which if not basically trivial (like an eight year-old child throwing a tantrum) are malicious in the extreme. You are also desperately trying to twist the truth.

The sole evidence against me in August 1970 for ‘hunting a vampire’ was a false confession attributed to myself by a police Sergeant. The police also made other personal statements in Court that they believed it was my intention to break open coffins. They produced a cross and a ‘stake’ (to which was attached a piece of string) in Court as ‘evidence to back up their version of ‘vampire hunting’. THAT was the sole evidence against myself.

I managed to explain in Court that that statement was false and that I was not ‘vampire hunting’, but that our presence in the cemetery was for the purposes of a serious psychic investigation into an unexplained phenomenon there. I was acquitted on this sole police evidence. The ‘enclosed area’ was academic. The charge stated that I was in Highgate Cemetery for an ‘unlawful purpose’. That purpose (according to the police) was to ‘hunt a vampire’ (opening coffins in the process).and it was this sole evidence on which I was acquitted.

The point of where I was on the evening/night of Friday March 13th 1970 when the alleged ‘mass vampire hunt’ allegedly took place, is indeed academic (although it is yourself you has seen fit to make such a big issue of it)…It is absolutely correct that I did not go to Highgate Cemetery that night. Indeed, I had previously warned Alan Blood and his companions to keep well away from the place due to the riotous mod that were assembling there.. I said that no serious psychic investigation could be conducted under those conditions.

A ‘mass vampire hunt’ did in a way take place but it was basically made up of drunks and hooligans being evicted from Highgate Cemetery by the police. The whole thing was a farce and I can assure everybody that no organised ‘vampire hunt’ took place at all.

The only substance for this story are a few lurid paragraphs that appeared in a self-published book in 1985 – conveniently some 15 years after the real riot at Highgate Cemetery actually. happened.

Your point about the Court transcript and witness statements simply does not make any sense. I can only really answer queries or statements which are rational.

David Farrant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.27.129 (talk • contribs) You are in breach of Wikipedia's rules on harassment and personal attacks

You have addressed nothing. You are merely conducting a personal vendetta against the Vampire Research Society. The fact remains that you were charged with being in "an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose" following your arrest in Highgate Cemetery on 17 August 1970. Those were the exact words on the charge sheet. And you were acquitted because Highgate Cemetery is clearly not "an enclosed area." Whether your lone vampire hunting was construed to be lawful or unlawful is irrelevant because it was due to the fact that you were in there late at night that you were arrested by police searching for black magic devotees. They discovered only you in the cemetery and arrested you because of the recent satanic evidence found at the Circle of Lebanon. You were found to be in possession of a cross and a stake. You told them that you were looking for the Highgate Vampire so that you could impale it. This is what your statement to the police confirms. The fact that you were engaged in vampire hunting and not black magic ceremonies helped to acquit you of being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose.

If, as you now claim, you were not vampire hunting, why did your reconstruction for the BBC's "24 Hours" televison programme in October 1970 not include "a piece of string around the ‘stake’... intended to be used as a ‘marker’ to draw a protective Circle on the ground"? Indeed, why do the photographs taken of you for the London Evening News, 16 October 1970, reveal you stalking the vampire with a wooden stake in one hand and a cross in the other? Barrie Simmons, the journalist who accompanied you that night, makes no mention of "a piece of string around the ‘stake’... intended to be used as a ‘marker’ to draw a protective Circle on the ground." He makes much of the tools of your trade: "There was a cross made out of two bits of wood tied together with a shoelace and a stake to plunge through the heart of the beast."

Vampire Research Society 22 July 2006

Miss Fearnley and Mrs Green(myself) are two distinct entities. It is very rude to speak of us as Green and Fearnley, especially from the " gallant grail knight of all things chivalric who ne'er fails to rush to the aid of fair maidens " with his trusty sword at the ready. Miss Fearnely sometimes uses my computer if she is at my house on a visit.We live near to each other. Nothing mysterious or dickipoggy there. Hope that clears that sinister plot up! Maybe we are not considered as fair maidens alas, boo hoo barbara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.185.39 (talk • contribs) You are in breach of Wikipedia's rules on harassment and personal attacks

I have already stated that you are both "two distinct entities." It is not at all rude to refer to you by your surnames. What is extremely rude is to refer to someone (who is not even present on Wikipedia) as "Bishop Bigmouth" which you did two days ago and were given a warning over.

Vampire Research Society 22 July 2006

Gareth J.Medway IS Gareth J.Medwaay

The 'VRS' (Aka. Mr. M) is well aware that occult author Gareth Medway visits me (often with others) every Friday evening, and has done for some time now as he is preparing another book (and yes, I am featured in it). He has often posted replies from mu computer before, often in relation to posts the 'VRS' have made about his elsewhere. I have stated this frequently (and publicly) in the past: indeed have often put "Posted by David Farrant" after he has signed it.

Rest assured 'VRS' we do not hide behind aliases, neither have we any need to do so.

David Farrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.27.129 (talk • contribs) You are in breach of Wikipedia's rules on harassment and personal attacks

How could I possibly know what you get up to on Friday nights? I have never formally met you and have only seen you (many years ago) from a distance. You are obviously (and perhaps understandably) attempting to undermine this discussion by constantly introducing tangential irrelevancies to take it away from the topic; something you have now almost managed to do. In doing so, however, you have breached Wikipedia's rules.

Vampire Research Society 22 July 2006

This whole argument is ludicrous. If there is anyone who is breaching Wikipedias rules it is the 'Vampire Research Society' themselves by attacking David, Barbara, Gareth and myself. Are we supposed to sit here and not say anything about the situation in progress? Is Mr. Manchester the only person who is entitled to say anything on here? If there is anyone who has vandalised this message board it is Mr. Manchester himself as one can see by viewing the main article on the 'Highgate Vampire'. And as Barbara has mentioned it is not strange that I use Barbara's computer seeing as I visit Barbara most weekends due to the fact that we go to the same Roman Catholic Church and it makes sense to use the same vehicle rather then two separate cars. Or cannot Mr. Manchester see that. And on another note, we have even more proof that Mr. Manchester is not affiliated with the Old Catholic Church. So how do like that Mr Manchester.

Catherine Fearnley—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.185.39 (talk • contribs) You are in breach of Wikipedia's rules on harassment and personal attacks

You are introducing malicious falsehood against someone not present with completely irrelevant allegations concerning religion which have nothing to do with the topic of the Wikipedia entry under discussion.

Anglican Bishop Richard Holloway, chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, ruled that Seán Manchester is a properly episcopally consecrated bishop in the Old Catholic Church at a hearing to deal with a complaint against an amateur radio station who inadvertantly cast an asperion on Seán Manchester's status

Vampire Research Society 23 July 2006

It has been brought to my attention that David Farrant was invited by one of the moderators of this board to add his own points of view on the Highgate Vampire Case and this is precisely what he has been doing all along.

Catherine Fearnley

Breaking What Rules?

After my initial post on here (not far back) I was addressed by a moderator thus (in part) . . .. “That said, you might want to address some of the accusations that VRS has directed at you on this talk page (just search for ‘Farrant’). Brevity would be appreciated . . .”, etc. That is all I have been doing as concisely as possible. Putting over the true facts to replace the untrue allegations being made against myself by ‘VRS’.. These attacks have included personal references to my wife and also deliberate misrepresentations about my ‘vampire hunting’ case in 1970 and my Old Bailey trial in 1974 – among other things.

If anything was in ‘breach of the rules’, I would have thought that is. I am only responding to deliberately untrue misrepresentation being persistently posted here by ‘VRS’ .which have apparently not been rebuked by any other moderator/s.

Another reason I have done this, is so the true facts can be left on record. As I was central to the Highgate case, I feel that I am the only one really qualified to do this.

On another issue: the ‘VRS’ state that in August 1970 they broke into a vault (the Wace family vault, in fact) to discover a ‘vampire’. They say that they forced the rusty door open by putting their shoulders to it to force it ‘inch by inch’. (They did not have prior permission). This door would have almost certainly have been locked which constitutes breaking and entering.

In the highly unlikely event that the door was unlocked, then that would still constitute unlawful entry into this private family tomb.

David Farrant—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.57.65 (talk • contribs)

"These attacks have included personal references to my wife and also deliberate misrepresentations about my ‘vampire hunting’ case in 1970 etc" (Farrant)

Please explain how quoting your wife from a court report published in half a dozen newspapers constitutes "personal references"? You called her as a defence witness in a trial that was receiving massive media attention and subjected her to immense unwanted publicity. What she had to say in her testimony is most relevant to the topic under discussion because it clearly shows that the so-called "British Psychic and Occult Society" is a figment of your imagination and that your "psychic investigating" was no more than "a laugh and a giggle" with a few friends in Highgate Cemetery after the pubs had closed. This is confirmed by others who knew you at that time.

Then there is Tony "Hutchinson" (not his real surname, but the pseudonym you gave him in the press) in whose cellar you resided from September 1969 until August 1970. He knew you and your wife very well. He not only confirms the myth of your current claims but also has compelling evidence that you were concocting a bogus ghost story for your local newspaper with his assistance. This manifested as your letter to the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 February 1970. When you made discovery of the circulating vampire rumours in the following weeks you promptly jumped on that bandwagon, adopting the mantle of a lone vampire hunter for the media. When gruesome satanic evidence was unearthed later that year you gradually adopted the guise of a necromantic occultist who engaged in clandestine ceremonies in woods and graveyards. This last bandwagon heralded your downfall as your attention-seeking led to even more extreme behaviour for the sake of securing publicity in the media.

Your claim that you were somehow part of a serious investigation into the supernatural goings-on at Highgate Cemetery are exposed to the light of day when anyone who actually knew you at the time is heard. Your current girlfriend, of course, was not born when these matters came under investigation, but your first wife was around and she gave testimony under oath at your notorious trials in June 1974 where she attested: “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.” (The Sun, 21 June 1974)

The concensus view is that you were a lone publicity-seeker in search of a convenient bandwagon to jump on. This widely held opinion was arrived at due to the plethora of first-hand evidence from your contemporaries who knew your claims to be bogus. Your compulsive stunts nevertheless landed you with a prison sentence of four years and eight months.

“Farrant was a fool. Fascinated by witchcraft … he couldn’t keep his interests to himself. He was a blatant publicist. He told this newspaper of his activities, sent photographs and articles describing his bizarre activities.” (Peter Hounam, deputy editor, Hornsey Journal, 16 July 1974)

"Mr P J Bucknell, prosecuting, said Mr Farant 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)

Vampire Research Society 23 July 2006

Several of us have already conducted an in depth investigation into the Highgate vampire myth/"story". This has involved checking witness statements, locations, history of the family tomb that was vandalised and the true identity of the vampire's victim "Luisa" and her alleged death, also the identity of the"vampire" and the sequence of events according to eye witnesses. The results of this investigation will be published shortly. I trust this statement is not in breach of anything,. barbara

True Identity of the ‘Vampire’.

I think Barbara makes a very interesting point . . . the true identity of the Highgate ‘vampire’.

Please be assured everyone, that I really know it And it is the last person you would really suspect – until you look closely! That is, at the accumulated evidence.

It will all be presented, but not at the moment.

David Farrant.

Avoiding Real Issues,

As usual, you are avoiding key issues completely and merely re-pasting issues dating back 30 years ago. So, lets get down to real facts shall we ‘VRS’ (Mr..)

I have already answered the issue about my first wife (please refer back) and I am not going to repeat it all again- as you appear to be doing. I will just say, however, that I did not ‘call’ her as a Defence witness, I had to subpoena her as a divorce was then pending. The issues connected to that divorce are no concern of yours neither are they relevant here.

Now:

1) Why have you ignored the issue of the vault door. You say now that you did not force it when in both editions of your self-published books, you say completely the opposite. Explain please without further prevarication .

2) You have stated that you had prior permission to enter the ‘vampire vault’. But you have ignored my question as to who gave you this permission.

So again, from who did you obtain this ‘permission’? It would have to have been given by a) relatives of the Wace family (who were buried in the vault) b) United Cemeteries Limited who were responsible for the upkeep of the vault or c) the Home Office.

It was not the first option, we have already checked this. So, can you refer us directly to this ‘permission’ that you say you were given.? By that I mean names, dates reference No’s etc. Explain please.

Two simple questions to events you have described as factual. and put on public record as being so.

Well?

David Farrant.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.13.180 (talk • contribs)

And as far as Mr. Manchester is saying that I am making a malicious falsehood over his claims that he is a 'bishop' with the old catholic church I am not. I have emails from the genuine old catholic church here in front of me to say that he is not a 'bishop' of the old catholic church but only linked to them, although they give no reference to which church he is linked to.They have also claimed that there are 'Rogue Bishops' within their Church community. By the way the Old English Catholic Church has changed it's name. And I also disagree with the 'Vampire Research Society' who claim that it is not rude to call Barbara and myself by our surnames. It most definately is rude and ignorant.How would Mr. Manchester like it if we just called him Manchester? By the way, again I will state that why is the the 'Vampire Research Society' are allowed to make personal and direct attacks on Barbara, myself and David, and are not in breach of wikipedias rules and regulations, and yet when each of us post rebuttals in response it is classed that our responses are? Can anyone come up with an explanation please?????

barbara

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.53.86 (talk • contribs)

Look, there are no actual moderators on Wikipedia (although there are administators). Each user has the right to send various warnings, including warnings about perceived personal attacks, to the others. When a warning has been given and the behaviour continues, a user can contact an admin and request further assistance, which may involve the blocking of a user for a certain period. So far, I am the only one who has sent official warnings to anyone (probably because I was the only one who knew how to do it until I informed VRS about the procedure a few hours ago, as visible here, when he complained about being called Manchester). I did send one notice to Barbara Green, but I also posted a warning to VRS, when he called Farrant's adherents a "clique", (as visible here). Apart from that, I don't see many obvious personal attacks here. Accusing each other of having done things or not knowing enough about the issue does not, IMO, constitute a personal attack. I might be wrong, of course - if anyone feels offended, s/he is free to give warnings and complain to the admins. --194.145.161.227 16:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

IF Bishop Richard Holloway states that Mr Manchester is a true bishop then we will have to ask him how he has come by this conclusion, to which branch of the OLD Catholic Church Mr M BELONGS FOR SO FAR ALL BRANCHES WE have tried have disowned any knowledge, and also who is Mr M's superior, to whom he is answerable for his conduct.

barbara

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.185.39 (talk • contribs)

Well "VRS"?,

I am still waiting for an answer to my two simple but essential questions above i.e Who it was gave you official permission to enter the Wace family tomb in August 1970? and why it is you are now trying to deny your ogiginal statement that you broke in and/or illegally entered that ('vampire's) vault?

Surely if what you are maintaing is true, uou would be only too willing to answer these two simple questions,

For the moment,

David Farrant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.88.163 (talk • contribs)

oh well that explains why WE got all the warning and VRS didnt! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.185.39 (talk • contribs)

Ahem. I think I said pretty clearly that VRS did get one warning. You got one warning, too. I wrote that a few lines above. And why don't you start signing with four tildes? I sent you all messages explaining how to do it, although I couldn't post to all of Mr Farrant's IP addresses. --194.145.161.227 18:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For Admin

I am sorry to appear ignorant, but I really don’t know what you mean by ‘tildes' and I only have one IP address which I use here. Forgive me to be more or less ignorant of computer technology, but I am basically an author and psychic researcher and rely mostly on the writing side.

I can tell you, however, that I have told most BPOS and HVS members not to respond here as I would prefer to deal with the asinine ‘VRS’ claims myself. That way the matter is more containable or it really would get out of hand. I can not compel everybody, of course, but I have explained to Catherine and Barbara that the ‘bishop issue’ is not really relevant here having nothing really to do with the original Highgate affair. But as I said, I cannot compel people if they feel really strongly about something. (But for the record, I totally agree with them in this respect).

Having said that, I am STILL waiting for an answer to my two questions form “VRS”.

David Farrant.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.88.163 (talk • contribs)

First of all, I'm not an admin (admins rarely turn up if you don't call them). I'm just a Wikipedian trying to help here (we all sound a bit moderator-like at times, especially when talking to novices). A tilde is this: ~. An even simpler way to sign is to use the button located above your edit window. Now, I'm not very knowledgeable about technical issues, so I don't understand why you have multiple IPs, and I don't understand why you don't know you have them; the fact is they're different, and that can be a problem in the long run, because people don't know which IP to send the message to. Now it's 172.215.88.163, the next-to-the-last time it was 172.202.13.180, etc..--194.145.161.227 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, I do feel strongly about this seeing as I'm a regular Church goer in a genuine Roman Catholic Church with two proper decent Priests at the helm and this so-called 'man of the cloth' is bringing the whole Catholic Church whether Roman or any other in decline and desrepute with his total misrepresentation of US on the whole.

"Apart from that, I don't see many obvious personal attacks here. Accusing each other of having done things or not knowing enough about the issue does not, IMO, constitute a personal attack. I might be wrong, of course - if anyone feels offended, s/he is free to give warnings and complain to the admins. --194.145.161.227 16:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)" quoted from Admin".

Well of course what the 'VRS' are doing is an obvious personal attack on everyone here including the authoress which did the original article anyone must be blind or dumb not to realize this. For goodness sake.

213.122.82.45 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Catherine Fearnley 213.122.82.45 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Again - I'm not an admin, so complaining to me is pointless. But I don't think that most of what VRS is doing can be regarded as a personal attack in Wiki terms. Formally, what he is doing can be described as discussing the sources of the article, proposing modifications to the article, and mentioning new info, some of which might eventually be added to the article. Again, maybe I'm wrong. This situation is not very common here - I mean the subjects of the article turning up and discussing each other on the talk page - and I'm not sure how the rules apply here. So I've only posted warnings about obvious negative terms like "clique" and "bigmouth". --194.145.161.227 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For Catherine,

OK. But that is really another issue which is not relevant to the ‘VRS’ accusations being levelled against myself here in connection with the original Highgate ‘vampire case’ in 1970.

I have the greatest respect for the Catholic Church (that is, the genuine Catholic Church) and I feel you are quite entitled to express your views when ‘impostors’ come upon the scene naming yourself and Barbara in the process. But I am only attempting to deal with the mass of untrue accusations ‘VRS’ have been making against myself in some almost desperate attempt to apparently want to re-write history. (I can confirm, though, that these accusations are most decidedly Un-holy).

But I still feel that everyone should keep to the main issues here, and not allow this discussion page to go off topic.

And I am STILL waiting to get an answer to my two simple questions from ‘VRS’. In fact, I feel inclined to add a third one:

When you claim you were ‘given permission’ to enter the Wace family vault, did this same ‘permission’ also extend to your claim that you received ‘permission’ to brick-up the Wace tomb with ‘garlic impregnated cement’?

Well, ‘VRS’. Everyone is waiting!

David Farrant.

For David, Everything to do with Manchester is relevant on here whether it's discussing his stupid vampire claims or whether Manchester is bringing the Catholic Church into disrepute. And as for the person who claims he's a 'wikipedean' you are indeed extremely wrong. You think that Manchester posting David's so-called 'criminal convictions' is discussing part of the original article well I don't think so, they are blatantly attacks. Oh and I can think of far more worse names to call him then bishop bigmouth believe me after what he's done to me for the past 4yrs. 213.122.114.239 09:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Catherine Fearnley213.122.114.239 09:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another Nail in the Coffin

As the ‘VRS’ are apparently not prepared to answer my three simple questions about his illegal entry into the Wace family vault in August 1970 (see above), I can only conclude they are unwilling to do so; or rather unable to do so without digging ‘themselves’ (himself) in even deeper. (Pun was accidental, but I think I’ll leave it).

Well in that case, can we try another one?

In both editions of your self-published book, you reproduce a picture of 'Lusia' pointing to a vault where her sleep-walk ended and which you say you entered (through a hole in the roof) and discovered three empty coffins. The accompanying caption to this picture in the second edition reads . . . “Lusia at the catacombs where her sleep-walk ended” (Ref.Pg.72). You go on to describe this vault as the Terraced Catacombs and how you entered these (by climbing down some 20 feet on a rope) to discover the three empty coffins.

Quote . . . “The large door before which Lusia had stood in stony silence could not be opened. Try as we might, it would not budge an inch. I knew of another approach. An aperture, just large enough for one person to squeeze through, .existed in the roof of the Terraced Catacombs. The drop was not inconsiderable, and I had to be lowered by a rope some twenty feet. Two assistants and we searched . . .”, etc, etc. (Ref. Pg. 77).

Now hang on a minute. You seem to be getting extremely confused here. The Terraced Catacombs - which lay back some 15-20 feet from the vault in the sunken Circle of Lebanon in front of which ‘Lusia’ is posing if the photograph – has no ‘hole in its roof whatsoever, quite apart from which, the distance from its flat roof to ground level is only 9 or 10 feet!

But all this is really academic because the vault entrance to which Lusia is pointing in the Circle of Lebanon, does not lead to the Terraced catacombs at all! It in fact leads to a small crypt at the base of the Julius Beer mausoleum (the largest mausoleum in Highgate Cemetery) which contains just five coffins. There is no other way in to this crypt so it seems you got ‘Lusia’ to pose outside the wrong vault for your fictional account.

You say that you late re-entered the Terraced Catacombs (by rope, of course!) to discover that one of the empty coffins was ‘missing’. Which then leads on to your story about the Wace family vault where you say you forced the door open to discover the ‘vampire’!

I ask you, who is really kidding who?!

But we still want to know who it was that you say gave you ‘official permission’?

Over to you “VRS”.

David Farrant July 24th 1.45 GMT

The inherent contradictions concerning issues raised about Farrant's claims then and now have not been addressed by him. They remain ignored. Yet one only has to look at what he was saying in the 1970s and what he is now saying to realise how little credence can be placed in his word.

In the 1970s he accepted that he was vampire hunting with a cross and a stake. He refers to two occasions in 1970 where he entered Highgate Cemetery with the clear intention of impaling the vampire if he found it.

Today he claims that he was not vampire hunting. He claims he was carrying a stake and a piece of string for the purpose of measuring out a circle for a magic ceremony. Today he denies that he ever believed in vampires or went in pursuit of the Highgate Vampire with the intention of impaling it with a wooden stake. This is totally contradicted by the interviews he gave to Thames Television and the BBC in 1970. Moreover, it is contradicted by a detailed interview he gave to the British Occult Society in which he confirms everything now attributed to him by the Vampire Research Society and the book written by its founding president - "The Highgate Vampire" - where his part at the periphery of the Highgate case is mentioned in a chapter titled "Amateur Vampire Hunters." These interviews where he talks at length about his vampire hunting exploits and all that followed are available on cassette and CD.

• The Farrant Interviews

The abuse and personal attacks by Farrant, Fearnley and Green occur wherever they discover the presence of the Vampire Research Society. They invariably bring all discussion to a halt as they hijack the agenda and turn it into yet another excuse for the propagation of falsehood, fabrication and defamation against someone they regard as their arch-enemy, someone who is no more interested in them than the majority of people. Their vendetta has resulted in these people introducing topics entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand. Regarding matters that are related via queries put by Farrant, these have already been covered in an earlier discussion with Jacqueline Simpson. Consent for the spoken exorcism conducted at a Highgate tomb in August 1970 is covered in Seán Manchester's recent interview on the World of the Unexplained radio programme, which Farrant already knows because he has heard it.

• World of the Unexplained interview

Personal attacks and other Wikipedia violations from Farrant, Fearnley and Green have brought all meaningful discussion to a grinding halt. Seán Manchester is not present, yet they abuse him as if he were. Everything being alleged by Farrant is false. How can I or indeed anyone provide responses to fabricated allegations in the guise of questions? Seán Manchester's published revelations on what happened regarding the topic under discussion at Jacqueline Simpson's misguided insistence on providing Farrant parity in this matter at its inception are found in his memoir, the relevant extract of which can be found here [1]

Farrant, Fearnley and Green have now usurped this page for their own ends. Twisted opinion, pernicious propaganda, and personal attacks on someone not even present will doubtless continue apace, but it will do so without the Vampire Research Society.

Vampire Research Society 24 July 2006

Answer is, he can’t answer

So, I see you have run off without answering any of my questions “VRS” - I somehow thought you would. You can’t answer because your alleged part in the Highgate phenomenon case can be PROVED to be one big hoax. Not only was/is your story about finding a ‘vampire’ in the Wace tomb just pure fiction, but so is your account of later tracking this down to a deserted Gothic mansion in Crouch End (after it had ‘escaped’ from the Wace tomb taking its coffin with it) and ‘staking it through the heart’ and then incinerating it on a pyre in the garden with a can of petrol.

It follows that if this ‘King vampire’ did not exist in the first place, it could not have bitten ‘Lusia’ (in reality your live-in girlfriend) and it equally follows that that you could not have ‘staked her through the heart’ after she had changed into a giant spider.

It is all fictitious nonsense.

But the greatest con of all is the photograph you published and produced (on television) of the ‘vampire’ after you alleged to have staked it in Crouch End.

This ‘vampire’ is no less than Mr. Manchester himself dressed up and it was taken from a 8mm home-made film that Mr. Manchester made in 1969. This also featured ‘Lusia’. I saw this film at Mr. Manchester’s Holloway flat in late 1969 and four other people were also present, including ‘Lusia’.

I have answered in detail here all the allegations “VRS” made against myself (and others) in the first place. Anybody can read back and check this, then make up their own minds.

As for tape recordings, I only gave one interview to Mr. Manchester in 1977. He immediately ‘cut this to pieces’ (you can hear all the ‘clicks’ and deleted entire sections that did not suit him. But I knew I was being taped and I also know what I originally said.

On the other hand, from the late 1970’s nid 1980’s I made numerous tape recordings of Mr. Manchester when he regularly used to visit my home during this period. And was totally unaware that he was being taped.

So just watch this space.

Pity you’ve gone in a way “VRS” as you STILL haven’t answered my questions!

For the moment,

David Farrant.

"Personal attacks and other Wikipedia violations from Farrant, Fearnley and Green have brought all meaningful discussion to a grinding halt. These three have now usurped this page for their own ends. Twisted opinion, pernicious propaganda, and personal attacks on someone not even present will doubtless continue apace, but it will do so" Well, Well, Well, I would never have guessed that the 'Vampire Research Society' would have run off like they always do so in this situation. Talk about if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!!!!! Never mind David, I'm sure there will be other message boards that Manchester ruins as well as this. Funny how he thinks it's ok to PERSONALLY ATTACK us but we are not allowed to the same, if we start posting our point of view across it it classed as usurping the page, funny I remember the 'Vampire Research Society' doing this on World Of The Unexplained not so long ago, and numerous other sites such as Bizarre Abyss, Combat 18, etc, etc. Also can Mr. Manchester explain to me why it is twisted opinion with regards to the true facts which I have received from the Old Catholic Church in Great Britain, that David has posted up some very good and valid points regarding the Wace tomb, the Crouch End incident, and also the 'Giant Spider', the size of a large cat??? Yes folks Mr. Manchester claims that one of the 'vampires' changed into a Giant Spider before his very eyes. He must have been hallucinating or suffering from schizophrenia or something. I guess the only way we'll ever settle this is when it gets into Court 213.122.105.226 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Catherine Fearnley213.122.105.226 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

PROFESSOR BILL ELLIS

As an important foot-note, I should add that when Professor Bill Ellis first interviewed myself in 1991, he already had a huge list of newspaper cuttings, many of which I had not even seen before (even local). Most of the ones I showed him, he had already found – with the exception of two . . . one in national newspapers in November 1971 and one in the Sunday People in October 1977.

But he had already been sent a load of selective newspaper cuttings by Mr. Manchester, and all of these – without exception – were of the sensational variety.

I believe (although I cannot remember the precise sequence exactly) Bill Ellis said that Manchester was refusing to see him because he (Manchester) had learned that he had been in communication with myself. The latter can obviously be checked with Bill Ellis himself.

Just to set the record straight.

David Farrant

Delete?

I saw this on Personal attack intervention noticeboard - From what I can tell the primary editors of this article are also the authors of the references for the article:

• David Farrant claims edits by 172.215.88.163
• Vampire Research Society self identifies as supporting the views of the organization headed by Sean Manchester
• Catherine Fearnley claims edits by 213.122.114.239
• Barbara Green claims edits by 82.47.185.39

are involved in this editing dispute. I propose this be deleted and protected from recreation for the following reasons:

• There seems to be no independent references
• The article is about an event involving living persons that are borderline notable not well known
• The article can be easily recreated if still notable of general interst in 10-20 years.

I would just list on AfD myself, I hesitate only because of my unfamiliarity with the subject thus I am requesting addditional views --Trödel 14:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsonworthing 14:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)User:simpsonworthingI (Jacqueline Simpson) am the primary writer of the article, a slightly longer version of an entry I wrote on the topic in The Lore of the Land (by Jennifer Westwood and myself) published by Penguins in 2005. My major source is a 1993 paper by Bill Ellis, which is defintely an 'independent reference'. He is an American academic, who came to England in 1992 to study this example of contemporary urban legend-building. Ellis made use of press reports from the 1970s, which are equally 'independent references'; those which are directly relevant to what I say are listed in my notes. I supplemented Ellis and the press reports by reference to the main points in Sean Manchester's reminiscences in his book (1991 version), since his personal account has been widely disseminated (websites etc) and is now an inescapable element in the legend. In studying legends one looks at every stage of their growth, elaboration, and distortion; it's not like studying history, where one tries to strip away accretions and recover 'original facts'. As I think I said in an earlier posting, to study the 'history' of Dick Whittington one looks simply at the real medieval merchant; but to study the legend one also needs the cat and the 'poor boy' theme, though they vertainly are not 'facts'.

thanks for the background - as I suspected my ignorance on the subject was showing - I don't think anyone is seriously considering delete anymore, no matter how attractive it would be to get rid of the war of words on this talk page. --Trödel 15:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?

"The article is about an event involving living persons that are borderline notable" (from above passageP. (1) Can someone explain to me why the two main people involved in this case and are contributing to the above article be classed as borderline notable? (2) Do not David Farrant and Mr. Manchester count as independent references considering that they were both involved in the 'case' at the time? If you are unfamiliar with the subject then I suggest that you do your own research about the matter and keep opinions to yourself instead of talking the twaddle you are doing 81.131.104.73 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Catherine Fearnley 81.131.104.73 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And what is "borderline notable" when its at home? I think that is a breach of the rules as it sounds rather rude.

barbara

Barbara - I apologize for any offense - none was intended. I have edited my remarks above.

Wikipedia needs to be careful about articles that concern living people for many reasons. Thus there is a specific policy about Biographies of living people. Since this article seems so closely tied to the individuals involved, it seems like a good way to solve the issues of who said what and what happened, etc. would be to not have an article at all, because we "must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research" (from the policy Biographies of living people). This article has quite a bit of original research that needs to be purged from the article. Finally, edit warring by people involved in the events being described is frowned upon, and has even resulted in bans from specific articles - see, for example, The Bogdanov Affair final decision which banned all of the users involved in the external controversy from editing the article indefinitely. Some key points of that decision were that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and tendentiously editing specific articles in an obsessive way can result in a ban. --Trödel 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Notable" is a technical term on Wikipedia, and certainly no personal attack. See Wikipedia:notability for the meaning of the term. And of course the people involved in the case can't be called independent, for the simple reason that they have been involved (and have achieved publicity by means of it, whether that was their purpose or not). That said, Trödel hasn't noticed that the main source of the article as it stands is Bill Ellis He is an independent source, writing from a mainstream (rationalist, folklorist) point of view - although he doesn't seem to be a mainstream folklore scholar. Whether he is sufficient as a source - I don't know. --Anonymous44 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: "DELETE THIS PAGE"

Re: “Delete this Page”

To explain more fully: Because Wickipedia posted up an article on the Highgate Vampire which mentioned a current book “Lore of the Land” by Jacqueline Simpson and a colleague, it was ‘invaded’ by certain people (well one to be exact) giving ‘their’ version. Posts were deleted wholesale and this stereotyped ‘version’ kept being replaced. Now, I have not read this book yet but I image that because it apparently mentions myself, this would explain this behaviour. Well, the thread was locked so people could read the original version in peace but then the whole thing started again on the discussion page.

The same person began writing in as a third party ‘about’ himself and then denying that the person being referred to (i.e. himself) knew hardly anything about it. In fact, the same old game.

Well, by now I had got to hear about it and as my name was repeatedly being referred to, I was left with choice but to set the record straight. Then all hell broke loose, the person ‘cut and pasting’ his unique version of events that occurred 30-35 years ago!

I was being pushed further and further by a mass of deliberately distorted untruths, which in turn, led to more and more actual truth being presented. Well the person didn’t like this and in the end, ran off sulking.

So, that’s that for now . . . ‘till the next time!

For the moment,

David Farrant

Although I think it's sorely tempting to delete the article, as it stands it reads fairly well and does give a reasonable history of the shenanigans surrounding the 'vampire'. Unfortunately, due to the combatants involved it needs to be permanently locked to prevent reverts or vandalism. However, if this talk page can be deleted... Beest 20:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsonworthinguser:simpsonworthing;;;I've been away on holiday, but in any case I have no intention of joining in the direct battles between SM and DF (and respective supporters) as to what really happened in 1970-4. My sole interest is in the origins and development of public awareness of these events, i.e. the growth of a legend. I am however slightly concerned that someone has said here that Professor Bill Ellis is "not a mainstream folklore scholar". Folklore is a subject with many, many sub-sections. Ellis's speciality is the study of contemporary/urban legends and their associated panics, which is recognised both in USA and UK as a legitimate mainstream branch of folklore (since at least the 1950s in USA and 1960s in UK). Maybe the contributor tried to find Ellis's name listed somewhere as "Professor of Folklore", and failed? If so, the reason is that there are few universities in either America or England that have dedicated Folklore Faculties (unlike Eire, for example), so many folklorists pursue their interests from within various other Faculties and Departments (ethnology, communications, literature, material culture, etc). I will check up on what Ellis's exact post and title was at the time he wrote on the Highgate affair, and which folklore journals he has had articles in. Jacqueline Simpson

I wrote it. Well, he is currently "an associate professor of English at the Hazleton campus of Pennsylvania State University". And an apparent academic admirer of his clearly says in this otherwise benevolent article: "Bill has never been part of the mainstream of folklore scholarship. His work has always been quirky. But those of us who study contemporary legend, folk narrative, and rumor know Bill's work and respect it highly."--194.145.161.227 13:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpsonworthing 18:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)User:Simpsonworthing Ah, thanks for the exact quote. I think Fine may have meant that because most folklorists study things with traditions going back decades if not generations, the work of Ellis (and the rest of the Contemporary Legend Research people) still isn't comsidered "mainstream". Personally I wouldn't agree, but I "see where he's coming from" as they say, and I remember arguments in our own Folklore Society on this point in the late 60s. Fine himself occasionally works in this field, and I don't think he would have intended seriously to denigrate urban legend research in general or Ellis personally.

But besides being Associate Prof. of English and American Studies at Penn State, Ellis is a member of the American Folklore Society, which is THE professional body in the field. In 1989 they asked him to chair a panel on "Emergent Legends" at their annual conference (which is a considerable honour), and in 1990 he edited an entire issue of Western Folklore devoted to printing papers from that conference. That shows a high degree of approval of his work. I don't have a complete bibliography for him, but I know that over the past 25 years or so he has contributed several papers each to Western Folklore, Contemporary Folklore, Lore and Language, Journal of American Folklore, all of which are peer-reviewed, plus the lighter Foaftale News.

OK, fair enough. I retract my statement. --194.145.161.227 19:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jaqueline

we hope you have had a nice holiday. After we saw what was going on we did try to give you some support knowing what we know. I hope you have not been too harrassed. I am just curious to know whether you mentioned Robin Hood in the Lore of the Land, as he is a national if not world wide legend?

With all good wishes Barbara Green www.robinhoodyorkshire.co.uk Simpsonworthing 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)user:simpsonworthing::Thanks. Yes, I did -- but Wikipedia isn't a chatroom, and we mustn't use it as such! JS

No, indeed, I quite agree, that is really not on. BG

(I've moved Simpsonworthing's comment from 18:02, 2 August to the "Preliminary results - 2" section. Seemed like the right place).--194.145.161.227 18:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your going to hate me, but...

I just want to point one thing out. This line:

(Legend tripping) ...means the real-life imitation of elements from a well-known tale, often involving role-playing, and sometimes leading to ritual acts of vandalism and desecration.

I just want the role-playing part removed. I think we get enough pressure from people thinking that we are satanists, mentaly insane, outcasts, radical fanatics, lunitics and/or conspericy theorists, without everyone thinking we also go out and hunt vampires every night.

What the?!

Are are there arguments between two vampire hunting organizations all over this talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazaban (talk • contribs) 08:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)