To all those aficionados of the now world famous (or should that be infamous?) Highgate case, those others with a fortean or supernatural inclination, or just the plain curious I bid you all a very warm welcome! I have had a long interest in the case - ever since my first visit to the crumbling west cemetery way back in the late seventies. I was still only a child and my father would recount to me stories of a reputed vampire that had earlier in that decade stalked it's overgrown tombs and shadowy vaults.
Barely a few months into the nineteen seventies and already there were reports of dead foxes found completely drained of blood both in the cemetery grounds and in the neighbouring Waterlow Park. And eye witness accounts of dark spectral figures and strange occult practices occurring both in and around the cemetery were soon making headline news. So when some local women claimed to have been attacked at night while they slumbered, a young catholic priest called Sean Manchester fast came to the conclusion that one of the infernal undead was responsible and vowed to track it down.
He first encountered it in the Wace vault located in the bowels of the old cemetery and after an initial attempt to exorcise and stake it failed, various vampire repellents were left within and the vault was bricked up and sealed. Manchester hoped that would be the end of it but it was not to be. The supernatural occurrences continued which prompted him to return to the vault to find that it had been reopened and the creature now gone.
Undaunted, he and and two of his assistants managed to locate it's new lair - a neo-Gothic ruin on the outskirts of Highgate that came to their attention through local reports of strange happenings occurring within. The vampire and his coffin was found in the basement and before dusk could fall Manchester this time found the courage to complete his mission and staked it through the heart. The cadaver quickly turned to a putrefying slime; but not before his faithful assistant managed to take some photos of the gruesome process. The remains together with the coffin were then dragged outside and burned until there was nothing but ash. This then was scattered to the four winds. And so at last Highgate was free of this marauding fiend and the cemetery itself returned to a state of peace and tranquillity.
He first encountered it in the Wace vault located in the bowels of the old cemetery and after an initial attempt to exorcise and stake it failed, various vampire repellents were left within and the vault was bricked up and sealed. Manchester hoped that would be the end of it but it was not to be. The supernatural occurrences continued which prompted him to return to the vault to find that it had been reopened and the creature now gone.
Undaunted, he and and two of his assistants managed to locate it's new lair - a neo-Gothic ruin on the outskirts of Highgate that came to their attention through local reports of strange happenings occurring within. The vampire and his coffin was found in the basement and before dusk could fall Manchester this time found the courage to complete his mission and staked it through the heart. The cadaver quickly turned to a putrefying slime; but not before his faithful assistant managed to take some photos of the gruesome process. The remains together with the coffin were then dragged outside and burned until there was nothing but ash. This then was scattered to the four winds. And so at last Highgate was free of this marauding fiend and the cemetery itself returned to a state of peace and tranquillity.
Or was it? As I matured my interest in the case deepened and with the subsequent television and radio appearances of the two main protagonists over the following decades, I resolved to try to get to the bottom of it all and discover just what was true and what was plain fiction. My journey so far is what I will be sharing with you here so be prepared and strap yourself in tight - because I can assure you now that it's going to be a very bumpy ride!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe British Occult Society was originally formed as an umbrella organisation circa 1860. Much of its activity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is shrouded in mystery. The BOS came out of the closet, however, in the mid-twentieth century before finally disappearing in 1988. During that period it was presided over by Seán Manchester who placed emphasis on investigating the claims of the occult and the study and research of paranormal phenomena. Out of this history sprang the Vampire Research Society (formerly a specialist unit within the BOS) that was founded by the president of the British Occult Society who made his television debut on 13 March 1970 to discuss the Society's findings concerning the Highgate Vampire case. Seán Manchester led the thirteen year investigation from beginning to end. There was seemingly more than one vampire for him and the Society to confront. In early 1974 he tracked the principal source of the contamination, which had already become universally known as the Highgate Vampire, to a neo-Gothic mansion on the Highgate borders. Here he employed the ancient and approved remedy. No vampire has been sighted in or near Highgate Cemetery and its environs since that time. The exorcised remains of the Highgate Vampire appear on page 144 of his book The Highgate Vampire.
ReplyDeleteIf the society is defunct, then you're an impostor. Nonetheless, I'll address your claims.
ReplyDeleteThere's no contemporary evidence for the society's existence before 1970. The first public mention of the organisation came from Sean Manchester in the 27 February 1970 article, 'Does a wampyr walk in Highgate?'. It says:
'Unlike the British Society for Psychic Research, the British Occult Society—which has no formal membership, but has correspondence from "50 to 100 interested people"—believes in "countering magic by magic." Some adherents have spent nights in Highgate cemetery.'
The leadership and the founding of the society have been contested. David Farrant claims to have founded it, and, indeed, booted out Manchester in August 1970. Though, this admittedly makes his public appearances with him all the more suspect.
One of these disputes culminated in a laughable 'duel' a.k.a publicity stunt. Lastly, I note your slab o'text has been regurgitated from other blogs. Apart from your own, it was also previously published as a comment by someone called 'Time_Traveller' on the Atlas Obscura and also appears on Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester.
I don't know what you're trying to achieve here, but plagiarism won't get you far.
There is plenty of evidence for the Society's existence before 1970. The former members themselves - that is, those who are still alive - are evidence in themselves of that fact.
DeleteWhen asked in his 27 February 1970 interview about membership, Seán Manchester would not comment. The "no formal membership" along with the "countering magic by magic" references is a journalist filling in the blanks himself, and misinterpreting what was said in the case of that last embellishment. What Seán Manchester actually said was something along the lines of science being unable to prove or disprove the supernatural, or engage in the battle between forces of darkness and the forces of light.
To even mention the "booted out" allegation is beneath contempt, as all contemporary reports and the public annals demonstrate.
You sound like an old record stuck on the word "plagiarism." Who coined the phrase and title "The Vampire Exhumed" do you think? It was Seán Manchester, and "The Vampire Exhumed" is the title of an unpublished manuscript which is nevertheless recorded as extant.
If there is 'plenty of evidence', provide it. You did allege the society had been around since 1860. You should have a wealth of material to draw upon, if that's the case - especially as you've stolen their name.
DeleteWhy would anyone feel inclined to provide anything to someone on the other side of the planet, not even born when the British Occult Society was prominent in the news regarding the Highgate Vampire case, who so dislikes the Society's last President and makes perjorative remarks like "you've stolen their name"?
DeleteIt seems most everybody else accepts that Seán Manchester was the President of the British Occult Society from 1967 to 1988.
You appear to believe that we are linked to Seán Manchester, and we have explained that we are a remnant of former members.
How is it possible for us to "steal" the name of our Society?
Whatever your problem is it is about you, and certainly not us!
So, in other words: you have no evidence, despite saying there's 'plenty' of it.
DeleteYou have the most curious way of going about getting evidence.
DeleteWhich former members would co-operate with a belligerent individual who spends almost every day of his life posting negatively about their organisation's former President?
Nobody in their right mind would want to assist such a person.
You stated there was 'plenty of evidence for the Society's existence before 1970'. I asked you to provide it. You haven't. The burden is on yourself to substantiate the claim, no matter what your antipathy toward myself is. Especially as you've sought to hijack the name of the society in question, falsely representing yourself as a 'representative' of the organisation in question.
DeleteProve that it existed before 1970 - or, better yet, as early as 1860 - with some contemporary evidence.
Our blog, which you have obviously read, clearly states: "In 1988 the British Occult Society was formally dissolved under the leadership of its final president." That was posted in 2011, and is reiterated elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteSo it was us who supplied that particular piece of information now apparently being used against us by a person, namely yourself, on the other side of the planet whose knowledge about the British Occult Society is confined to what we are prepared to share. As also previously stated to you:
We are a remnant of former members who are willing to talk about the British Occult Society which was formally dissolved as an active entity in 1988.
"BOS, you must be an impostor, as the actual BOS was dissolved in 1988." - Anthony Hogg (The Vampire Exhumed)
"Is the group truly inactive if they're still posting? Must be an imposter!" - Anthony Hogg (The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society - founded by Redmond McWilliams and also administrated by Anthony Hogg)
Of the fifty-nine memebers of "The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society" only two seem to post anything - Redmond McWilliams and yourself - while the remainder stay relatively quiet or possibly disinterested in your obsessive attacks on Seán Manchester that comprise ninety percent of posts.
You sound like an old record with the needle stuck on the word "plagiarism."
Seán Manchester, of course, is the author of "The Vampire Exhumed," albeit a title unpublished but listed nonetheless, so whoever is claiming to represent "The Vampire Exhumed" must be a plagiarist as well as an impostor!
The BOS is "truly inactive." Those of us comprising some of its former members, however, are not. Repeating what has long since been understood to be journalistic embellishment from a local newspaper forty-two years ago is pathetic and lame. Seán Manchester sais nothing of the kind regarding membership and "countering magic with magic." When asked about the membership he declined to comment. The blanks were filled in by a journalist.
'Our blog, which you have obviously read, clearly states: "In 1988 the British Occult Society was formally dissolved under the leadership of its final president." That was posted in 2011, and is reiterated elsewhere.'
ReplyDeleteIt has been regurgitated from elsewhere, sure.
'So it was us who supplied that particular piece of information now apparently being used against us by a person, namely yourself, on the other side of the planet whose knowledge about the British Occult Society is confined to what we are prepared to share.'
Again, you're speaking on behalf of a dissolved society. Therefore, you're an impostor.
'We are a remnant of former members who are willing to talk about the British Occult Society which was formally dissolved as an active entity in 1988.'
With no disclosure of membership and featuring on a blog that plagiarises material from elsewhere. Excuse me if I don't consider it to be entirely reliable. More on that, later.
'Of the fifty-nine memebers of "The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society" only two seem to post anything - Redmond McWilliams and yourself - while the remainder stay relatively quiet or possibly disinterested in your obsessive attacks on Seán Manchester that comprise ninety percent of posts.'
It's possible, but I haven't asked them, individually, why they don't comment. But that's ok. Members stay quiet in a lot of groups. Another group I co-admin, has over 500 members ('Count Dracula')...but not every single member posts on that, either. So, what's your point?
'You sound like an old record with the needle stuck on the word "plagiarism."'
Because it's true. And, as I've pointed out, is a hypocritical habit coming from a litigious who wilfully engages in copyright violation, themselves (Manchester).
'Seán Manchester, of course, is the author of "The Vampire Exhumed," albeit a title unpublished but listed nonetheless, so whoever is claiming to represent "The Vampire Exhumed" must be a plagiarist as well as an impostor!'
That was the name of an unpublished MS. Manchester doesn't have a copyright on the title, nor is Redmond representing himself as Manchester. His blog also has a subtitle.
Manchester, on the other hand, cribs huge chunks of text from other writings, and passes them off as his own. Even on the blog where readers ask him questions. He's also done it in his books. One could even argue that 'The Highgate vampire' is a Dracula rip-off (among other sources, like 'The Devil rides out' movie).
So, no, it's not the same thing.
'The BOS is "truly inactive." Those of us comprising some of its former members, however, are not.'
Active in what, exactly? Plagiarism? Rehashing VRS material? Doesn't seem like there's any point to it.
'Repeating what has long since been understood to be journalistic embellishment from a local newspaper forty-two years ago is pathetic and lame. Seán Manchester sais nothing of the kind regarding membership and "countering magic with magic." When asked about the membership he declined to comment. The blanks were filled in by a journalist.'
How do you know? What's your source? Are you accusing the journalist of lying? Either way, it's pretty clear Manchester indulged in occultic practices, so even if it's an 'embellishment', it's not far off the mark.
Lastly, I see you've completely avoided providing any evidence - no doubt, deliberately so - of your claim that the society was founded in 1860 (via a blog entry you stole from the VRS blog).
I find this particularly strange, because Manchester, himself, claimed the society was founded in 1960. For someone representing the same organisation - falsely, I might add - I find your lack of familiarity with its history, well, rather amusing. Clearly, you're an unreliable source.
Says the so called 'remnants' of the British Occult Society:
ReplyDelete'Of the fifty-nine members of "The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society" only two seem to post anything - Redmond McWilliams and yourself - while the remainder stay relatively quiet or possibly disinterested in your obsessive attacks on Seán Manchester that comprise ninety percent of posts.'
As I've explained before to the 'independent researcher' none of our society members are under any compulsion to post or comment. Like Anthony has said the group dynamics of our FB society is not at all unique... many choose to lurk with just the occasional post or comment on all the other groups and forums I have seen. That is of course their choice and as both society founder and co-admin it is one that I respect. It is rather bizarre that you to make the unsubstantiated claim that our society members are possibly disinterested in the topics discussed when they signed up of their free will and would have seen what we are about before requesting membership (it is an open group after all). That many have chosen to remain with us speaks volumes in itself I would have thought.
As for the more serious accusation that Anthony and I post material which are 'obsessive attacks on Seán Manchester' and that they 'comprise ninety percent of posts.' Just where do I start? The remit of our group is to both investigate the Highgate phenomenon and the claims made by its two main protagonists over what really happened. We also explore related topics: Highgate Cemetery, Swains Lane, Highgate Village and its other alleged spooks, the media coverage, history, supernatural theory, vampirology, the scientific and sceptical perspectives etc. As BSM is one of the main two protagonists then of course he will be one of the big topic areas but your claim of ninety percent is so way of the mark it's untrue! We critique his work and actions but always in a balanced way. They are in no shape or form personal attacks. Not all that we feature relates to his alleged involvement in the Highgate case (his plagiarism, occult past, the hate blogs, and the nazi allegations being all good examples); though it is important to cover these nonetheless because it has a real bearing on his reliability both as a witness and participant in said case.
"I see you've completely avoided providing any evidence - no doubt, deliberately so - of your claim that the society was founded in 1860 (via a blog entry you stole from the VRS blog)."
ReplyDeleteThe former BOS members are not obliged to furnish an antipathetic person such as you with anything, and can hardly "steal" from the VRS blog when, as is common knowledge, the VRS began its life as a unit within the British Occult Society with many of its members also being BOS members.
"Manchester, himself, claimed the society was founded in 1960."
He did so on just one occasion to avoid answering further questions about the organisation's history and historical associations with other investigatory societies who at that time still eschewed all publicity. He later acknowledged this to be a ruse to throw prying journalists off the scent. The correct date for the origin of the BOS, of course, is 1860.
"The remit of our group is to both investigate the Highgate phenomenon and the claims made by its two main protagonists over what really happened."
Just how successful has that "remit" actually been? Especially as there are at least five other Facebook groups of which I am aware that do the same and comprise of members to include some who were involved at the time.
"Though it is important to cover these nonetheless because it has a real bearing on his reliability both as a witness and participant in said case."
Yet you do not apply this same axiom to your friend David Farrant. I do not need to ask why. I naturally reject outright any idea of Seán Manchester plagiarising, practicing occultism, launching hate blogs or being a Nazi. That list could be applied with evidence every bit as much, indeed more, to the man who is excused really critical examination by you, ie David Farrant.
'The former BOS members are not obliged to furnish an antipathetic person such as you with anything, and can hardly "steal" from the VRS blog when, as is common knowledge, the VRS began its life as a unit within the British Occult Society with many of its members also being BOS members.'
DeleteIt's theft when it's word-for-word taken from their blog. Not a mere reference. Also, it's inaccurate information. Manchester, himself, said the society was founded in 1960.
'He did so on just one occasion to avoid answering further questions about the organisation's history and historical associations with other investigatory societies who at that time still eschewed all publicity. He later acknowledged this to be a ruse to throw prying journalists off the scent. The correct date for the origin of the BOS, of course, is 1860.'
Which means he lied. If he later acknowledged the 1860 date, what's your source? Do you have any evidence - as your claim suggests - for the founding of BOS in the 19th century?
'Just how successful has that "remit" actually been?'
Very.
'Yet you do not apply this same axiom to your friend David Farrant.'
Yes, I do. And 'friend'? That's a bit of a stretch.
'I do not need to ask why.'
Yes, you do, especially as you're here to 'refute lies', while making some pretty serious (and unsubstantiated) accusations, yourself. If you don't need to ask, then you're not here to engage in rational discussion, only to attack.
'I naturally reject outright any idea of Seán Manchester plagiarising, practicing occultism, launching hate blogs or being a Nazi.'
That's your choice, but Manchester's a plagiarist and has engaged in occultic practices. It's in his own writings. You either don't understand what plagiarism is and/or have no concept of occultic practices.
The Nazi thing is, admittedly, contestable and based primarily on anecdotal evidence and interpretation of his role in the phoney Nazi scandal. But the way he's misrepresented the Nazi room contents, don't help his case.
'That list could be applied with evidence every bit as much, indeed more, to the man who is excused really critical examination by you, ie David Farrant.'
Farrant hasn't been excused on my blog. You're just showing your lack of familiarity with my writings, at the expense of displaying outright hostility against myself...for some reason.
If it could be applied with 'equal evidence' against Farrant, then all you're saying is that he and Manchester are birds of a feather. I agree.
Indeed, as I pointed out in the following blog entry, it's about 'context'.
ReplyDeletehttp://dawwih.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/suspicious-minds/
It's the same reason the VRS, Manchester, et. al. trot out Farrant's criminal convictions, too. The difference is, we offer a more balanced approach, by linking to relevant material, and discussing counter-claims. My motto is, 'there's always two sides to a story'.
David Farrant's criminal convictions actually exist and it is important to cover these because they have a real bearing on his reliability as a witness.
ReplyDeleteThey include:
November 1972 at Barnet Magistrates’ Court:
Indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard (Ecclesiastic Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860).
June 1974 at the Old Bailey's Central Criminal Court, London:
Malicious damage in Highgate Cemetery by inscribing black magic symbols on the floor of a mausoleum.
Offering indignities to remains of the dead via black magic rites in Highgate Cemetery where photographs were taken of a naked female accomplice amidst tombs.
Threatening police witnesses in separate case where his black magic associate, John Pope, was subsequently found guilty of indecent sexual assault on a minor.
Theft of items from Barnet Hospital where the offender worked briefly as a porter in late 1970.
Possession of a handgun and ammunition kept at Farrant's address, which also contained a black magic altar beneath a mural of a face of the Devil.
The above are convictions for which he was found guilty and, in the case of the latter five convictions, sentenced to a term of four years and eight months imprisonment.
These must have some bearing on his realiability as a witness. The 1972 conviction at Barnet Magistrates Court heard from the Crown Prosecution that Farant had manufactured the Hallowe'en ritual as a publicity stunt and informed both press and police of what he was doing beforehand to ensure maximum media coverage. Newspaper reporters were on hand to photograph his arrest at midnight in the churchyard. Does this not have some bearing on his reliability as a witness?
The other thing that exists, is David's refutations of the charges. He and Kev Demant, in particular, make a very compelling case for the thing being a 'stitch-up', especially considering how easily the charges were contested. Note, Farrant also attempted to appeal the decision. I suggest reading Demant's ebook: http://plan9.150m.com/fundex.htm
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the graveyard desecrations continued even after his incarceration...and were taking place, prior. Not only that, but other people who'd engaged in it, like Anthony Fields, got off scot-free.
The 'face of the Devil' wasn't represented, but the face of Pan. Two different 'deities'.
And sure, it has some bearing on his credibility...if you relied on those charges, alone, without context or viewing rebuttals. Reiterating a rap sheet isn't enough, on its own.
That's why it pays to hear what the other side has to say, too. If 'charges', alone, were enough, then Manchester actually did make 'black magic phone calls' to John Bradish's wife, Gillian. And I'm sure you'll refute that.
However, if we're to follow the previous convictions = no credibility logic you seem to be indicating here, then it would have to equally apply to Manchester. After all, he portrays himself engaging in criminal activity in his 1985 book, The Highgate vampire. So, if Manchester's claims are truthful, then the difference between Farrant and him, in that regard, is that one got caught; the other didn't. That still means you're left with two crims.
Am I saying Farrant's an angel, pure as the driven snow? Of course not. I agree on the publicity-seeking thing, re: Barnet (and other activities, for that matter). Hell, even Demant suggests Farrant was the 'agent of his own downfall' in some respects. But is he nothing but pure evil, spouting nothing but lies? No, I don't think so.
Do I think Manchester is nothing but pure evil, spouting nothing but lies? No. Like I said, I find merit in things they both say, but don't completely agree with either, hence, my impartiality. And I give my reasons for that.
I think it's important to weigh up what they both say and see which account is more reliable (if either is), drawing upon evidence wherever possible. It is the height of folly to blindly follow what they say, without some form of scrutiny, on account of their deceptive - and outright occasionally, malicious - practices.
"He and Kev Demant, in particular, make a very compelling case for the thing being a 'stitch-up'."
ReplyDeleteA judge, jury, the media and the public thought otherwise. I agree with those who listened attentively to the cases where Farrant was convicted, and not to an anarchist looking for an anti-establishment cause or a man branded by the courts, press and public alike as a compulsive liar. That you find the "stitch-up" allegation compelling (don't most criminals claim they have been stitched up when they have been banged to rights?) again reveals your bias and total lack of partiality. I know of nobody outside the miniscule Farrant coterie who would agree with you.
"Indeed, the graveyard desecrations continued even after his incarceration...and were taking place, prior."
Just as burglaries continue after one particular burglar is jailed. However, graveyard desecration at Highgate reduced drastically from 1970 onwards due to the massive attention the cemetery was receiving making it practically impossible for vandals and desecrators to visit the place. A police presence and a security guard presence is what led to Farrant's arrest in August 1970. Prior to 1970 there was far more vandalism and desecration as police and public records will confirm. When Farrant visited the graveyard after the pubs shut, as confirmed by his wife under oath, in the 1960s he was not caught because the cemetery was not receiving the attention it did from 1970.
"The 'face of the Devil' wasn't represented, but the face of Pan. Two different 'deities'."
That's Farrant's latter-day revisionism which unsurprisingly you are trotting out. Really, Anthony, listening to you is like listening to Farrant himself. The fact is the Devil face above Farrant's black magic altar looks nothing like Pan. It looks like a Devil face with vampire teeth. And that is what it is!
'A judge, jury, the media and the public thought otherwise.'
DeleteAnd yet, innocent people are still incarcerated. I'm not conclusively saying Farrant was, but in context with the rebuttals, it's a compelling case. And, again, by your logic, Manchester also made 'black magic calls'. That's clearly what the judge concluded.
'I agree with those who listened attentively to the cases where Farrant was convicted, and not to an anarchist looking for an anti-establishment cause or a man branded by the courts, press and public alike as a compulsive liar.'
Yet several charges were downplayed and one of them even related to cemetery vandalism over the course of something like three years. If you're referring to media coverage as 'proof', then you'll note that some also considered the duration of Farrant's incarceration to be overly harsh.
That you don't address anything Demant says in his ebook, don't view rebuttals, nothing, suggests that anything put to you regarding Farrant will be automatically discarded. I don't think that's fair or reasonable.
'That you find the "stitch-up" allegation compelling (don't most criminals claim they have been stitched up when they have been banged to rights?) again reveals your bias and total lack of partiality.'
No, it means I've read through the rebuttal and weighed what's been said. As you know - but have glossed over - I'm also critical of Farrant. Demant even suggests that Farrant's antics may have caused him to be the 'agent of his own downfall'. That's not bias, but balance.
'I know of nobody outside the miniscule Farrant coterie who would agree with you.'
Personal familiarity isn't automatically proof. But I believe that if more people read Demant's ebook, they'd share similar views.
'Just as burglaries continue after one particular burglar is jailed. However, graveyard desecration at Highgate reduced drastically from 1970 onwards due to the massive attention the cemetery was receiving making it practically impossible for vandals and desecrators to visit the place.'
Farrant's 'graveyard desecration', in this case, was drawing chalk markings on a vault's floor. That's hardly in the same league as the tomb looting going on at the time. On top of that the only evidence for his making it, was that he took photographs of it. By the same logic, people who took pictures of vandalised tombs, also did it, too.
Note, also, that one of the charges brought against him, was propping up a corpse in someone's car. He denied it, and a man later admitted to doing it - Anthony Field.
It's clear the prosecution had an incredibly flimsy case, yet still won. Which suggests a stitch-up of some kind.
'That's Farrant's latter-day revisionism which unsurprisingly you are trotting out.'
I find it more plausible, considering Farrant was a Wiccan and Wiccans don't worship Satan. Where is the direct reference - from him - that the horned thing pictured is actually the Devil?
'It looks like a Devil face with vampire teeth.'
It also looks like something Manchester would paint, as alleged by Farrant, and we have Manchester's oil paintings for comparison. That aside, Satan doesn't have 'vampire teeth'. If I'm not mistaken, the painting featured in Sue Kentish's article for News of the World. Is that correct?
"If 'charges', alone, were enough, then Manchester actually did make 'black magic phone calls' to John Bradish's wife, Gillian."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't talking about "charges" - I was talking about criminal convictions. Let's be clear about something here, Anthony, and that is that Seán Manchester was not "charged" with making "black magic telephone calls" to Gillian Bradish. Her husband, however, was charged with criminal assault, and, as we know, he as found guilty of that assault. In his defence, John Bradish used the "black magic telephone calls" allegation to mitigate the charge. Seán Manchester denied making any such calls (he did not know the Bradishes and their telephone number was ex-directory) and afterwards discovered it was David Farrant who made the calls anonymously to the Bradish household. It was also Farrant who tried to persuade the Bradishes the calls were made by Seán Manchester who has always been prepared to be polygraphed on this matter. Farrant has always refused to be polygraphed. On the evening of the court case outcome witnesses in the Prince of Wales pub, Highgate, heard Farrant boasting about making the calls to frame Seán Manchester. Farrant had been out to get Bradish from the time Bradish had made unwanted sexual advances on Mary Farrant in the previous year at their Archway Road flat. Mary told her husband and he launched a hate campaign against Bradish who tried to make up for his behaviour by offering Farrant bail money and somewhere to live (Farrant had been residing in Tony Hill's coal bunker prior to his arrest in Highgate Cemetery in August 1970). Farrant seized this opportunity to have revenge on Bradish while at the same time exacting revenge on Seán Manchester who had publicly warned against Farrant's proposed graveyard antics on television and in the press in March 1970. Anyone who knows Farrant will be aware that he is not someone to let go of a grudge, and, let's face it, he still holds a simmering grudge against Seán Manchester to this very day.
"It would have to equally apply to Manchester."
No it would not, and allow me to remind you that Seán Manchester has never been convicted of any crime. To imply otherwise is libellous, Anthony, but, of course, it's safe for you to libel people left, right and centre because you are anonymous and hide behind a Devil face mask. Several times you have published elsewhere the falsehood that Seán Manchester has received a fine when in fact he has never been fined for anything in his entire life.
"Hence, my impartiality."
You are partial, biased and prejudiced for reasons that have little to do with the merits and flaws of David Farrant and Seán Manchester. You have your own agenda and latching on to the two aforementioned people forms part of that agenda which is to ruthlessly exploit the Highgate Vampire case situation for your own ends. It so far hasn't worked, and it is destined to fail.
'I wasn't talking about "charges" - I was talking about criminal convictions.'
DeleteYour logic is, if a court and the media (which you also brand as unreliable!) says something it must, be default, be 'so'.
'Let's be clear about something here, Anthony, and that is that Seán Manchester was not "charged" with making "black magic telephone calls" to Gillian Bradish. Her husband, however, was charged with criminal assault, and, as we know, he as found guilty of that assault.'
Sure, except Bradish 'was given an absolute discharge' and Manchester 'was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £200 and warned not to telephone Mrs. Bradish.'
After finding Bradish 'technically guilty', what was Magistrate William Hughes' rationale for discharging him? 'But I think he was provoked into going to see him and assaulting him.' So, there you go.
'...and afterwards discovered it was David Farrant who made the calls anonymously to the Bradish household.'
Not something conclusively proved. Indeed, your rebuttal is merely regurgitating what Manchester and associates have said on the matter. Cf: http://kevin-chesham.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/detractors.html
'No it would not, and allow me to remind you that Seán Manchester has never been convicted of any crime.
The key is 'never been convicted'. That hasn't stopped him engaging in criminal activity. If it's 'libellous', blame Manchester for referring to it in his books.
'. . . but, of course, it's safe for you to libel people left, right and centre because you are anonymous and hide behind a Devil face mask.'
Says the guy who a) uses the name of a dead Hungarian scholar b) uses a painting of him in his profile pic. Also, it's not a Devil face mask: it's a vampire mask.
'Several times you have published elsewhere the falsehood that Seán Manchester has received a fine when in fact he has never been fined for anything in his entire life.'
Again: 'Manchester was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £200 and warned not to telephone Mrs. Bradish.'
'You are partial, biased and prejudiced for reasons that have little to do with the merits and flaws of David Farrant and Seán Manchester. You have your own agenda and latching on to the two aforementioned people forms part of that agenda which is to ruthlessly exploit the Highgate Vampire case situation for your own ends. It so far hasn't worked, and it is destined to fail.'
What is my 'agenda', exactly?
"Bradish 'was given an absolute discharge' and Manchester 'was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £200."
ReplyDeleteJohn Bradish had a criminal conviction which is still on record and will stay with him until the day he dies. After twelve months had passed the "binding over" of Seán Manchester was dissolved and has not remained on record.
"'But I think he was provoked into going to see him and assaulting him.' So, there you go."
Seán Manchester didn't know the Bradishes and certainly didn't know their ex-directory telephone number. Farrant did and it was Farrant who made the calls. A polygraph test will sort this out. Seán Manchester has always agreed to take one from as far back as 1970! So, there you go.
"It's not a Devil face mask: it's a vampire mask."
And the difference is ... ?
"Again: 'Manchester was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months ..."
Look, Anthony, I know you are not a lawyer, but most people would know that being bound over for twelve months in a sum of money is not a fine. When you are fined it remains recorded you are obliged to pay the fine or go to prison. When you are bound over no money is taken unless the terms are broken within the allotted time (twelve months in this case). Then it is forgotten. When Farrant was fined for indecency in a churchyard in November 1972 at Barnet Magistrate's Court, along with Victoria Jervis who was also fined, it remains on their respective criminal records permanently.
"What is my 'agenda', exactly?"
To bandwagoneer the case of the Highgate Vampire and to stalk two people associated with it, namely David Farrant and Seán Manchester (particularly the latter against whom you evince far more hostility).
'John Bradish had a criminal conviction which is still on record and will stay with him until the day he dies.'
DeleteSure, except Manchester was the one punished for the incident.
'Seán Manchester didn't know the Bradishes and certainly didn't know their ex-directory telephone number. Farrant did and it was Farrant who made the calls.'
Prove it.
'And the difference is ... ?'
One is a vampire, one is a devil.
'To bandwagoneer the case of the Highgate Vampire and to stalk two people associated with it, namely David Farrant and Seán Manchester (particularly the latter against whom you evince far more hostility).'
Incorrect. My agenda is to uncover the truth of the matter.
"Sure, except Manchester was the one punished for the incident."
ReplyDeleteThe plaintiff in a case cannot be "punished." That is a legal impossibility unless he is found to have perjured himself or been in contempt of court. Neither of which applies to Seán Manchester. So being bound over for a few months because the defendant lied in mitigation is really small potatoes compared to receiving a criminal record that stays with you for the rest of your life. While it is obviously unfortunate that Farrant was able to succeed in hurting John Bradish and Seán Manchester through his deceitful actions, reeking revenge on them both, it was unquestionably John Bradish who was punished and not Seán Manchester.
"Prove it."
I am not in a position to prove anything. Seán Manchester is, and is more than willing to subject himself to a polygraph. After the case he was informed by a regular in the Prince of Wales that the Bradishes' telephone number was ex-directory. Bradish did not reside close to or in Highgate, and was known to only a couple of people when he visited the Prince of Wales to have a drink with Farrant. Anyone who drank regularly in the Prince of Wales will attest to the fact that Seán Manchester did not know the Bradishes.
"One is a vampire, one is a devil."
"Devil" to mean "demon" (as sometimes applied in some bible translations). Yet a vampire is a demonic variant, indeed a predatory demonic enity manifesting in corporeal form. That is the Christian interpretation rendered by those who made a study of such things down the ages. Even some non-Christians agree with that interpretation, of course, but it would probably be rejected out-of-hand by the majority of modern-day pagans and witches.
"My agenda is to uncover the truth of the matter."
For what reason? And how? These events took place before you were born and those who later wrote about them second and sometimes third-hand were hopelessly inaccurate. Some who were contemporary are either now dead, quite old or unwilling to allow their lives to be blighted by further discussion about it. Those who know "the truth of the matter" will carry that truth with them until they die. Those who do not know, like yourself, will never know - any more than you would know the truth of the matter about a host of other supernatural occurrences that took place before you were born.
Why do you concentrate on just this one case and no other to the degree of posting about it on forums, blogs and boards for over a decade? What you create and post about is predominantly related to the Highgate Vampire. Why?
My own feeling is that you are obsessed with Seán Manchester's part in it, and, to a lesser degree, David Farrant's claims. I also suspect that, like Kevin Chesham, there might be an element of "Mark Chapman syndrome" about it, and your bandwagoneering has probably evolved into something much more than tall poppy syndrome. You smell fame and fortune in being the "man who shot Jesse James." But there is one flaw in that pursuit and that is that you are going after the wrong person. Seán Manchester is not the "outlaw." The other guy is!
'The plaintiff in a case cannot be "punished." That is a legal impossibility unless he is found to have perjured himself or been in contempt of court. Neither of which applies to Seán Manchester.'
ReplyDeleteBradish assaulted Manchester on the pretext of Manchester making 'black magic' calls to Bradish's wife. Bradish was found 'technically guilty' but given an absolute discharge. Manchester, however, 'was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £200 and warned not to telephone Mrs. Bradish.' Clearly, Manchester came off worse in that incident.
'I am not in a position to prove anything.'
Then you shouldn't make authoritative claims about Farrant's involvement in the Bradish incident.
'"Devil" to mean "demon" (as sometimes applied in some bible translations). Yet a vampire is a demonic variant, indeed a predatory demonic enity manifesting in corporeal form.'
You're really clutching at straws now.
'For what reason? And how?'
I'm glad you asked. Why? Because it's a story that deserves to be told outside the bias of its leads. How? By examining various writings on the subject.
'These events took place before you were born and those who later wrote about them second and sometimes third-hand were hopelessly inaccurate.'
Fortunately, we have contemporary sources, as well as first-hand accounts to draw upon.
'Why do you concentrate on just this one case and no other to the degree of posting about it on forums, blogs and boards for over a decade? What you create and post about is predominantly related to the Highgate Vampire. Why?'
Because there are many layers of the story. So much to unweave and unravel.
'My own feeling is that you are obsessed with Seán Manchester's part in it, and, to a lesser degree, David Farrant's claims.'
That's because you're Manchester-centric, so naturally, your worldview will be somewhat obscured.
'You smell fame and fortune in being the "man who shot Jesse James."'
If I was after 'fame and fortune', I wouldn't be so cautious with my identity, and I'd also be making money off it: I don't. My blogs are free to read.
In the meantime, I note you're still avoiding saying what your actual involvement in the case was/is. Were you personally involved in investigating the Highgate Vampire case? If so, can you verify it?