Alexander Lucard ([info]alexlucard) wrote,
@ 2005-05-11 09:48:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Edit Entry  Edit Tags  Next Entry
Vampire Hunter Drama Part 3 is part two, and there's a link in there to part one.

Anyway, the arch rival of Sean Manchester, the guy who has been annoying me since I was a teenager and the subject of the last two posts on the subject has emailed me as of last night. This guy has a criminal record a mile long, from digging up corpses and violating them on down.

But at least he's more eloquent in his madness than Machester. here's David Farrant's email to me.

Dear Alex Lucard
I was most intrigued by all your comments here about the so-called Highgate Vampire; not least about myself being a 'vampire hunter'! It would appear that you arrive at most of your conclusions about the Highgate Case and myself from sensational accounts you have gleaned from the internet the problem is however that almost invariably, most of this inaccurate sensationalism as been posted up by Mr Sean Manchester himself (Please note he is NOT a genuing bishop) and if you check back on these accounts you will see that I have only been forced to correct unfounded public allegations made by Mr Manchester himself - albeit frequently hiding behind his usual aliases.

It is not my intention to argue against all the points you have recently made on the insidepulse website, as I appreciate you, like anybody else are entitled to personal opinions (however wrong or misguided these have proved to be in your particular case).

I will just say one thing however, to set the record straight for you - ... I am NOT a 'vampire hunter', in reality I am just a psychic investigator and I do not even accept the existence of 'blood sucking vampires'. Mr Manchester apparently does (as he has publically stated in his self-published book The Highgate Vampire), but that is really his problem! In passing, I can conclude by saying that my non-acceptance of Mr Manchester's ridiculous public claims he makes about 'vampires', has been the main reason for his campaign of hatred against members of The British Psychic and Occult Society and myself.

Yours Sincerely
David Farrant
President BPOS.

NB: In the event that you might be interested my main website can be found at also could I refer you to Occult Forums International Vampire Thread, Off Topic Occult. The link is from which Mr Manchester has just been publically banned (within the last 3 or 4 days or so.

SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP! Sigh. My email to him

Ummm...Dave? That column you read of mine was me printing the whack job hilarious emails Manchester sent me. Re-read the column. Those are his words, not mine with me making fun of him at the end.

It was in reference to the column I wrote back in Jan '05 ( where I recanted the entire Highgate vampire saga.

I know Manchester very well. And by that I mean, I know him by reputation very well, as he's been the butt of American folklorists and parapsychologists for as long as I can remember. Norrine Dresser, Paul barber, Carol Page. All of us snicker quite profusely at the whole "Highgate Vampire" incident.

I'll tell you what I told Manchester: Stop acting like children. Both of you. This happened 30 years ago. My god, both of you are old enough to be at retirement age soon and you're carrying on like schoolchildren about an event maybe 5% of the world remembers and only a fraction thereof even cares that it occured.

All your sniping between the two of you does makes you both look foolish and foppish. Like attention whores deserpately clinging to some sort of public limelight when one of you just needs to start completely ignoring the other. I don't care if he starts it, or is just really good at getting your goat, because the end result is STILL the two of you bickering of the world wide web. Please stop.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

The Highgate Vampire Continued
2005-06-10 12:47 am UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
FOR ALEX LUCARD ( And whoever else happens to be interested in all this!)

Some of your past remarks and references to Mr. Manchester have indeed been brought to my attention. But would you please note that I was only responding to (or being forced to respond to) remarks or references that you, yourself, made about the so-called Highgate Vampire Case in the first place.

You may well have implied that Mr. Manchester was a ‘loony’ (and I wouldn’t disagree with that) but in reality, if you hadn’t published any of Mr. Manchester’s emails regarding us in the first place, we would have had no need to respond. (I say, ‘we’ - and we are all in full agreement - but please remember I am writing this myself personally).

Thank you for acknowledging that I am not a ‘vampire hunter’; it has taken me literally years to get this through to many people. And I still do not seem to have conveyed this point here. However, I think further comment about this could only result in repetition, may I respectfully suggest that maybe this matter could be closed?

Yours etc,
David Farrant, President of the BPOS

(Reply to this)(Thread)

"I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-04-15 05:12 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Thank you for acknowledging that I am not a ‘vampire hunter’

The Sun, 19 August 1970, Evening Standard, 18 August 1970, and the Evening News, 18 August 1970 record David Farrant's vampire hunting claims and quote his boasting to stake the vampire if he discovered it. A photograph of Farrant with his wooden stake raised above his head, wearing a Catholic rosary plus a large crucifix around his neck, was published in the Evening News, 29 September 1970.

The unabridged text of an interview with David Farrant on Today (Thames Television), 13 March 1970, follows:

Sandra Harris: “Did you get any feeling from it? Did you feel that it was evil?”

David Farrant: “Yes, I did feel it was evil because the last time I actually saw its face, and it looked like it had been dead for a long time.”

Sandra Harris: “What do you mean by that?”

David Farrant: “Well, I mean it certainly wasn’t human.”

Farrant's second interview was on 24 Hours (BBC), 15 October 1970. Viewers see him entering Highgate Cemetery, removing a cross and stake from his belt, then prowling amongst the tombs, reconstructing his stalking of the vampire on the night of his arrest.

Laurence Picethly: “On August the seventeenth, Farrant decided to pay a midnight visit to the cemetery to combat the vampire once and for all. At the cemetery, Farrant was forced to enter by the back wall [footage shows him entering via the rear of the cemetery], as he still does today. He armed himself with a cross and stake, and crouched between the tombstones, waiting. But that night police, on the prowl for vandals, discovered him. He was charged with being in an enclosed space for an unlawful purpose, but later the Clerkenwell magistrate acquitted him. Now, in spite of attempts by the cemetery owners to bar him, Farrant and his friends [none of whom were discovered by the police or subsequently identified by Farrant] still maintain a regular vigil around the catacombs in hope of sighting either the vampire or a meeting of Satanists.”

The televised reconstruction continues with Farrant demonstrating his stalking technique with a cross in one hand and a sharp wooden stake in the other, and concluded with a very brief interview with Laurence Picethly.

David Farrant: “We have been keeping watch in the cemetery for … [pauses] … since my court case ended, and we still found signs of their ceremonies.”

Laurence Picethly: “Have you ever seen this vampire?”

David Farrant: “I have seen it, yes. I saw it last February, and saw it on two occasions.”

Laurence Picethly: “What was it like?”

David Farrant: “It took the form of a tall, grey figure, and it … [pauses] … seemed to glide off the path without making any noise.”

The interview with Farrant ends at this point. The above transcript reproduces it in its entirety.

Barrie Simmons, a British journalist, joined Farrant for a "midnight date with Highgate's Vampire" and recorded the following 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."

These Hammer Horror film antics resulted in a five column report from Barrie Simmons in the Evening News, together with a half-page feature of photographs of Farrant demonstrating his "vampire stalking" technique, but little else.

Soon afterwards David Farrant hung up his cross and stake and replaced them with pentagrams and ritual daggers.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-04-17 07:58 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ! This bullshit should have died a year ago! Get a fucking life, you old Limey bastards!

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-04-17 11:17 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-04-18 08:33 am UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
David Farrant is quoted in the News of the World, 23 September 1973:

“I did not enjoy having to kill the cat, but for one particular part of the ritual it was necessary. The sacrifice of a creature represents the ultimate act in invoking a deity. If somebody crosses me or my friends I will use a curse. My curses have never failed. Others will tell you how I reduced one man to a mental breakdown and in the end he begged me to remove the curse.”

Interviewed again by the News of the World, 17 July 1994, Farrant is quoted as saying:

“As High Priest I have to have sex with a girl at her initiation, but if she is very unattractive I might pass the task on to someone else.”

In 1975 he wrote an article for New Witchcraft magazine where he tells of having ritual sex in Highgate Cemetery to "raise a satanic force."

The failed amateur vampire hunter turned diabolist claims to be a white witch. The press called him a "phoney witch." Hence The Sun newspaper's headline on 4 July 1974: "Phoney Witch Sent Out Dolls Of Death." Journalist Michael Fielder reported:

"David Farrant, self-styled priest of the occult, saw his weird world of witchcraft collapse yesterday. An Old Bailey jury found him guilty of trying to stop two detectives giving evidence by sending them voodoo death dolls. And he heard Judge Michael Argyle remand him for psychiatric reports before deciding his sentence. For 28-year-old Farrant it was the final proof that his phoney black magic was a failure. He had been convicted in three separate trials for desecrating graves in London's Highgate cemetery, stealing linen from Barnet Hospital and sending the death dolls. In his first trial he bragged he would be cleared because three members of the jury were frightened of his powers. ... He was said to have sent clay effigies to Detective Constable Michael Westmore and Detective Constable David Reid to stop them giving evidence against a member of his coven, John Pope, who faced a sex charge."

In an article published in 1975 (written while he was in prison) for New Witchcraft magazine, issue 4, Farrant states:

"I disrobed the Priestess and myself and, with the consecrated blood, ... We then lay in the Pentagram and began love-making, all the time visualizing the Satanic Force so that it could - temporarily - take possession of our bodies."

The Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973, on its front page:

"Questioned about the enormous outcry against his work involving ritual slaughter, Farrant stressed that he would not halt sacrificing animals."

Interviewed in the News of the World, 23 September 1973, by Sue Kentish:

"He spoke matter of factly about a ceremony watched by 12 naked, chanting individuals during which he severed a cat's head with a dagger. All the participants then smeared themselves with blood before indulging in sex. 'I did not enjoy having to kill the cat, but for one particular part of the ritual it was necessary,' said Farrant. 'The sacrifice of a living creature represents the ultimate act in invoking a deity. I do not see animal sacrifice as drastic as people have made it out to be. Thousands of cats are used for medical research. The very livestock we eat have their throats cut. And, at least, I anaesthetised the cat before I had to kill it'. With a shrug of the shoulders he admitted mercislessly pursuing grievances."

Interviewed in the Hornsey Journal, 31 August 1973, by Roger Simpson:

"David Farrant, told the Journal in an interview at his Archway Road flat: 'Hundreds of years ago a naked virgin would have been sacrificed, but obviously we couldn't do this now so we had to have an animal for the important ritual.' The victim was a stray cat and Farrant stressed that the animal was anaesthetised for the 45 minutes ritual which culminated in the slitting of the cat's throat."

Court report in the Hornsey Journal, 16 November 1979:

"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."

If he was lying under oath, he perjured himself. If he was telling the truth, he is a Satanist.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-08 02:45 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Just to let you know that the Highgate "Vampire" story has at last been shown to be a hoax, please see the link below for the full blown account:

Please see

Perhaps now would be a good time for Mr Manchester to consider his future career path, or perhaps even to retire, given that the golden goose is about to stop laying eggs. I think you would be a good gay porn star Mr Manchester, with your Byronic curls and your strong saddle-toned buttocks. Ooo-errr, is that a stake down your breeches or are you just please to see me [Etc. Etc.]

Georgie Pin.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-09 09:21 am UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
You make false allegations about events and incidents where you were not present and only learnt about long afterwards.

You lay claim to being part of closed cases from the past that had nothing to do with you and certainly did not involve you.

You talk nonsense on various message boards about an investigation carried out by others, saying that you have proved it to be a hoax when all you have done is make unsubstantiated claims and organised a short tour to a graveyard with a few oddballs and curiousity-seekers. You were even denied access to the place you most wanted to exploit for your own publicity purposes. Yet that didn't prevent you from making further false statements about matters you know nothing about.

The man behind all this on whom you totally rely is David Farrant who was a figure of fun in and around Highgate in the late 1960s and the early 1970s up until his incarceration. Nobody viewed his publicity stunts as anything more than foolishness to attract attention to himself. There was only him. He had no members and only one associate in the form of John Pope, the self-styled head of the Temples of Satan. Though also a publicist and feeble-minded, Pope was genuinely involved in the occult. Farrant was not and never has been.

In 1987, Farrant admitted 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 (which we know is not true) 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'."

As recently as 1987 Farrant was still claiming that he originally believed in and indeed supported the vampire theory put forward by the British Occult Society/Vampire Research Society.

We do not have to take the Finchley Advertiser's word for it, of course, or even Farrant's word; we have the archive photographs of him stalking the vampire with his rosary, crucifix, holy water, large cross and sharpened wooden stake. We have the taped interviews that Farrant so kindly provided at the time. And, finally, we have the BBC television footage of Farrant reconstucting his lone vampire hunt which led to his arrest by police on the night of 17 August 1970.

Farrant's part in the vampire saga was an elaborate hoax purely for the sake of his own self-aggrandisement, but that does not mean that others investigating the phenonemon from as far back as early 1967 (a time when Farrant was not even resident in the UK) were anything other than genuine.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-09 09:23 am UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
After discovering Seán Manchester through the television programmes of 1970 where Seán Manchester was captioned “President, British Occult Society,” Farrant slowly began to fraudulently adopt this nomenclature as his own. Later he described himself as being not just the “President” but also the “Founder” of the British Occult Society. All of which was hotly denied by the Society, needless to say, who were quick to point out that their organisation was founded in 1860.

When Farrant appeared at the Old Bailey in 1974 he still described himself this way. Hence court proceedings were quoted with the prefix “self-styled” by newspaper editors and media journalists. In 1983, however, Farrant decided to amend the usurped name to “British Psychic and Occult Society.” He had spoken to the press about his “thousands of followers” (Hornsey Journal, 23 November 1979), and even went so far as to claim a number as high as 20,000 (Finchley Press, 22 February 1980).

The bona fide BOS president was quoted in the same Finchley Press report:

“On Monday, Seán Manchester, president of the British Occult Society, disclaimed any connection between Mr Farrant and the society. … [Seán] Manchester believes that Mr Farrant’s activities — including the libel action [which Farrant lost] — have been publicity-seeking.”

This was Seán Manchester's assessment ten years earlier when he first made the acquaintance of Farrant who had written to a local newspaper, the Hampstead & Highgate Express, with his “Some nights I walk past the gates of Highgate Cemetery” letter, published on 6 February 1970. Farrant’s letter concluded with the frank admission: “I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested to hear if any other readers have seen anything of this nature.”

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

“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.”

The arch-fabricator had forgotten about this when three years later on 23 April 2006 he published the following on

"The Vampire Research Society republished my ‘original’ letter to the Ham and High on February 6th 1970. Problem is, an extra line has somehow found its way in to the effect of me supposedly saying . . . “I have no knowledge in this field . . .”, etc. Well, luckily, I happen to have the original paper in front of me (another original also being on record at the British Library) and the line outlined in capitols has been erroneously inserted; one can only assume by the VRS."

Farrant then proceeds to publish his letter from January 1970 minus the last line which is clearly visible to anyone visiting that newspaper's archive or indeed the British Library. Once again, Farrant is shown to be a falsifier of the facts.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-09 09:24 am UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Farrant's fraudulent claim that he was 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 him at the time is heard. His current girlfriend, of course, was not born when these matters came under investigation, but Farrant's first wife was around and she gave testimony under oath at her husband's notorious trials at the Old Bailey in June 1974, as recorded by The Sun newspaper's court reporter:

“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)

The concensus view thirty years and more ago was that David Farrant amounted to nothing more than 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 his contemporaries who knew his claims to be bogus. His publicity stunts nevertheless landed him in jail 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, reporting on Farrant's next court appearance following his orchestrated arrest, this time in a churchyard, where witchcraft had supplanted vampires as his vehicle for publicity.)

Soon after his brief stint as a lone vampire hunter, Farrant hung up his cross and stake and replaced them with pentagrams and ritual daggers. This led to more arrests and a stiff prison sentence from which he has perhaps understandably never fully recovered.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-09 04:57 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Hello Sean,

I knew it wouldn't be long before you came back to add your two pence worth. All cut 'n pasted from the archives no doubt!

Firstly lets just clear up the recent visit to Highgate Cemetery, undertaken by the Highgate Vampire Society on Friday May 5th 2006. The reason that access was denied was due to Health and Safety regulations. There was tree surgery being carried out in the vicinity of the terraced catacombs which meant they were out of bounds. This was unfortunate, but had nothing to do with the reputation or notoriety of anyone attached to the group.
It's interesting to note Carol Page's opinion of how welcome you would be at Highgate Cemetery (As recorded in her critically acclaimed "Bloodlust"). Personally, I'd let you in - in the hope that a branch fell on your head and knocked some sense into you (just joking of course).

There are just too many inconsistencies in your version of the story for it to be true, you must have been reading our message board regularly over recent months, so you know what we have discovered regarding the Wace Tomb, Lusia's real identity, The old people's home and so on. No sign at all of any real vampires I'm afraid. One "blast from the past" has also been traced and his/her testimony also makes it clear that David is closer to the truth than ever.

Why don't you answer some of the questions put to you on our message board Mr Manchester instead of attacking David's past, which is making you look rather bitter and twisted? If you had made any attempt at all to discuss the case with us then maybe it could have been you walking through the leafy paths and crumbling monuments last Friday and enjoying the fine company that is David, Catherine and friends.

For now,
Cardinal Rochdale.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-09 05:08 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Hi Thanks for the reply 'Cardinal Rochdale' this has to be quick because I am going out tonight unlike some people I do have a life to lead. With regards to the ridiculous statement that I was not born at the time of the so-called Highgate case, well so what!!!! Nobody on here will have been around to witness the battle of 1066 and all that, but we still know about it. So to keep harping on 'about I was not born' is utter ridiculous, but then again we know that they are utter ridiculous.

They just do not like it when the whole truth is printed before their very eyes.

Kind regards

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-09 05:34 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
American journalist Carol Page wrote the following to Seán Manchester on 20 October 1989: “It is clear that you have a great deal of knowledge and experience with the subject [of vampirology] and I will gladly devote an entire chapter in my book to your work.”

They met in a London suburb for a little under two hours on 15 November 1989. This was the only time they held a conversation. It became apparent that Page was out of her depth and knew nothing about either vampirology or vampiroidism. Despite employing Seán Manchester’s work to provide, albeit in altered form, one fifth of the text for her book, she failed to mention him in her acknowledgements and would not supply him with a complimentary copy when her book was published. She requested the loan of some photographs, two of which were not returned, and none of which were used as her book contains no illustrations.

Page wanted inside information about the subculture, and anything vaguely sensational. She was to be disappointed. It was explained that Seán Manchester is a researcher into supernatural phenomena and that his published work The Highgate Vampire might best inform her about his modus operandi.

During the meeting, conducted in an indoor café, Page wore exceptionally dark sunglasses which made it impossible to see her eyes. Seán Manchester had no real wish to constantly look only at his own reflection and, therefore, averted his gaze from time to time. Page makes an issue of this in her book. She is indescribably petty. It is indeed incredible that her book ever came to be published. Save for the text devoted to defaming the VRS president, her effort dwells on a few vampiroids she met plus a catastrophic television show beamed by satellite from Budapest to the USA on which Seán Manchester, while invited, declined to appear. His instinct, once again, proved correct.

Having by now met Seán Manchester and absorbed his work from cover to cover, Page wrote on 23 February 1990: “The chapter about your work is based on your book, The Highgate Vampire, and the transcript of the interview we did in November.”

It is nothing of the sort, needless to say.

Her letter continued: “I told [Julian Henriques of the BBC] that I did not think any look at the modern vampire ‘scene,’ if you will, was complete without a look at Seán Manchester and his work. I hope that is all right with you.”

This was written by Page an entire three months after she had met Seán Manchester, and long after she had read and absorbed the contents of The Highgate Vampire. She concluded her letter with the following sentence: “Your work in this area is important and I congratulate you for taking the time to do it.”

However, when she came to write her book she wrongly attributed the damage to tombs at Highgate Cemetery, not to those persons actually convicted of such crimes, but to the VRS president whom she portrays in what can only be described as defamatory terms. Seán Manchester has not been convicted of any crime or misdemeanour in his entire life. She also claims that he has been banned from entering Highgate Cemetery. This, again, is completely untrue as the Friends of Highgate Cemetery will gladly confirm, especially as Seán Manchester is a valued member of FoHC of many years.

It is hardly surprising that her publishers are not interested in reprinting her book. It seriously misinforms and offends.

The catalogue of distortions and half-truths in her book will not be dignified with too much repetition, save that one of the milder inaccuracies ~ the false attribution that Seán Manchester considers Lady Caroline Lamb to be a vampire ~ is not untypical of the journalistic style employed.

Page's attention to what is a matter of public record took a very poor second place to the agenda which Seán Manchester describes in his vampirological guide as being reliant on “squalid sensationalism, silly gossip and malicious falsehood.” He also raises the very significant point that “Page sought no comment” from him “on any of the charges she brings.”

Details of the book which Carol Page perverted and exploited, along with another that exposes her attempt, can be found at this link:

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-09 05:24 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Hello Rob Milne,

Critically acclaimed by whom might we ask? A representative sample follows of critiques of Bloodlust follow:

“I would treat anything this woman said with the utmost scepticism.”

~ Clare Emmett, Norwich, Norfolk, England.

“Regarding Highgate Cemetery, as I recall, the criminal damage was done by [name deleted], not Manchester who I believe was on record then as attempting to counter [the true offender’s] odd behaviour.”

~ Phædra Kelly, Freshwater, Isle of Wight, UK.

“I have pretty much concluded that Ms Page doesn’t care about what she has written, she is only waiting for royalties.”

~ Dorion Cable, Detroit, Michigan, USA.

“She is snide and condescending, both to the people she interviews and to the reader. She incessantly states her own opinions, interpretations, and snotty comments at every opportunity.”

~ Chad Savage, San Francisco, California, USA.

“She’s not at all objective and it definitely colours the way she writes. She takes things I said so far out of context that even though I said certain things they have a totally different meaning than I meant. Carol took one isolated incident and exaggerated it and made me out to be bi-sexual, which I am not. … Sexual preference is a big thing to her, all through the whole book. It seems what Carol wanted to write about was sex, not ‘vampires.’ … I don’t appreciate being used as a tool to sell her book.”

~ Shannon, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

(Shannon, like Seán Manchester, was interviewed by Carol Page for Bloodlust.)

Rob Brautigam, not exactly a supporter of Seán Manchester, commented at the time: “Those guys at ‘prestigious’ Harper Collins [publishers] must have been asleep on the job when they decided to accept such a worthless book for publication.”

Jeanne Youngson, who had collaborated with Page throughout the production of the book, wrote in her Count Dracula Fan Club newsletter in January 1992: “I’m sure some people envy Carol Page. It’s not often one can get a book published and get paid for it while shooting down people one doesn’t like.”

Bloodlust is undoubtedly one of the worst books of the genre ever written. Carol Page never published another after this first attempt which resulted in many copies being pulped by her publisher. Seán Manchester, of course, has revealed the whole Bloodlust saga in a chapter of his concise vampirological guide, The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-09 05:29 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
You know, as much as I think both sides in the Farrant/Manchester decades old squabble are nuts, I do have to agree that Carol Page wrote a very shitty book and I generally use it as a prime example of how NOT to write when people ask me about my industry.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-11 04:53 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Stop encouraging them!!!!

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-11 04:56 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
It's a really really REALLY bad book.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-12 05:04 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Actually Alex,
If there was anyone who started it, it was yourself by posting private emails from certain parties (who were attacking us) in the first place. We did not ask for any of this to happen. Yet it does time and time again. What starts out as an seemingly innocent posting about 'the Highgate Vampire' turns out be a full scale war.

Personally we are both just sick to death of it just as much as anyone else. So to put a question across. If you did not want to hear both sides of the story, why did you post those emails on a discussion board anyway?

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-12 05:20 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
You seem to keep forgetting this isn't a discussion board. It's my personal blog. Which means in order to read it, you have to actively search it out. Especially as you keep replying to posts over a year old, meaning you're scouring for anything on the topic.

The only thing I've EVER published publicly are papers and essays on the events you two took part in. Which of course, is part of what being a folklorist and historian is all about: Recording historical events.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-12 11:18 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
The only thing that YOU have published right back on AlexLucard1 is the private correspondence between you and certain other third parties including personal details of where we all live,that is hardly research or essays and papers, which to me is harrasment. How would you like it if I posted your personal correspondence on a 'blog' or 'discussion board' including where you lived. I don't somehow think that you would. I wish that 'bloggers' or 'message board owners' would think twice before they published details of this sort. And also not only that but people's real names and identities are on this 'personal blog'. YOU are the editor, then why not edit and remove all the comments from when you first started posting about the case if YOU do not like it. Then lets face it you would be left with virtually NO blog.

We did not actively search for AlexLucard how could we, until we found your name in google when searching for someone else we had never even heard of you.

I think that you have the audacity to complain about both parties discussing the matter when it was yourself who inadvertently started it in the first place.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-12 11:50 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Ummm...Sean? I'm a public figure. My address, phone number and email have all been printed multiple times. I've learned to not be bothered with it. When you become in any way shape or form a quasi-celebrity, you give up any claims of public harassement and most of what passes for a private life.

You are right though that the only Highgate related stuff I have put in my LJ is the laughable comedic emails that I have recieved about the Highgate Vampire from you and Farrant. That's because my blog is not my professional work. It's my loveable "talk to my readers" thingamig. The funny thing is you and Farrant as recently as 04 I believe both emailed me thanking me for my utterly nonbiased towards either you or your detractors paper I wrote. That's because even though I think you're both nitwits, I keep my personal feelings out of my professional work.

And you have heard of me. You've both contacted me off and on for a decade. I have most of the correspondence saved.

What you keep forgetting is that you're responding to a year+old post. No one goes through old posts in a blog. They're in the moment things. The only people reading it are your respective fan clubs and myself laughing at you both. I mean, you're easily in your mid to late 50's and both of you squabble every chance you get, both here and on other sites as if you were teenagers. Like I keep, saying, it's comedy at its finest.

All I've done is go "Hey look! Craaaazy Vampire Hunter Email!" and you both found my blog on your own and began a very long and inspid conversation that I occasionally jump into to say "You both need to act your age."

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-13 12:26 am UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
I am Not Sean, I am an independant party who happens to be involved with this situation. I am not a 'celebrity' as you seem to think I am. I am not 50yrs old and I certainly hadn't heard of you until this nonsense came online. If certain parties left us ALONE then we would not have the need to 'squabble' as you so rightly put it. Actually I think you need to act your age by allowing personal emails and correspondence online so much for professional research. If that is all you can muster up is correspondence then I'd recommend that you give up your day job.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-13 02:40 am UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
I am acting my age. I'm gen-x. We mock the obviously bizzare and inane. ;-)

My readers enjoy seeing the strange and bizzare emails I get from my professional writings. And so I give them a taste of it.

And I don't see why you cling to the anonymous thing. At least Farrant and his group of nutters at least admit its them and give their names through it all.

But some advice: on this topic, much like any of the great occult frauds of the 20th century such as the Amityville or Smurl houses, Farrant and manchester will never be left alone because as long as they are alive there will be people fascinated, amused, and intrigued by the whole events. Whether it's being mocked or investigated, it's with them on a constant level of srcuitiny until they die or go hermit. It's either suck it up or just never look certain topics up. That cut and dry. Especially with the Internet.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-15 10:49 am UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
While it is perfectly acceptable for the public to show an interest in what people have written (in this case about vampires), it is not acceptable for anyone to harass and violate the privacy of any individual whether they are perceived to be "quasi-celebrities" or "nuts" or whatever else.

Publishing material on the internet can fall foul of the laws of libel, incitement of hatred, religious intolerance, malicious falsehood and harassment; especially if you reside in England, as we happen to know you do, Alex.

So, please don't be quite so smug when you give out advice to those you try to publicly humiliate and ridicule. It could turn around on you and land you in the law courts.

As for you disingenuous claim of "I know it's you Sean, I can read your IP" when, in fact, someone else was posting who is a colleague of that person, how come you couldn't read the IP of the message from the Farrant apologist on this thread who you mistook for "Sean" when you replied "Hi Sean..." and clearly they too were not him?

You aren't the only one with a bullshit detector, Alex.

The difference being that yours obviously needs new batteries.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-15 02:27 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
No one's being publicly humilated or ridiculed. All that's happened is I've printed emails that were sent to me, which of course is perfeclty legal on all front, and then writing my commentary of "OMG. How fucked up and stupid are these people." I hate to break it to you, but that's completely within the letter of any law. It's called a "Mailbag."

Again, I'd strongly suggest a Uni intro to Law course for you, as it's amazingly obvious you know little about the subject.

Plus I called the Farrant apologist Sean to piss him off. Same reason I goad you into being more and more angry and foppish with each post you put in my blog.

It's okay. You're in depserate need of attention and are highly defensive. We've all known that for decades. I just find it amazingly laughable you continue to respond in a year old post When the only people who even come to this are yourself and Farrant fans while I just continue to roll my eyes as the complete insanity of all of you.

It's 2006. Your legacy is that of "Nutter." Accept it and move on. All you're doing with every post is merely giving me tons of ammo to show people how insane you really are.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter"
2006-05-15 03:12 pm UTC (from (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Actually it is illegal to publish personal correspondence without the person or persons consent who wrote it. In the UK it is called Slander and Libel. Now if there is anyone who needs to be 'pissed off' to use your quotes it is yourself.

If there is anyone who is insane it is yourself. You brought this matter to attention on your blog because you knew precisely what would happen. It is you who seems to be in the need of attention and not anyone else on this blog. Likewise Alex Lucard, you call yourself a historian and folklorist but you have brought this blog and your reputation to the level of the gutter.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - [info]alexlucard, 2006-05-15 03:49 pm UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - (Anonymous), 2006-05-17 01:01 pm UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - [info]alexlucard, 2006-05-22 02:37 am UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - [info]wolfbaronxylo, 2006-05-15 04:19 pm UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - (Anonymous), 2006-05-17 01:02 pm UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - [info]alexlucard, 2006-05-22 02:37 am UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - (Anonymous), 2006-05-20 08:02 pm UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - [info]pantherwill, 2006-06-03 05:38 am UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-03 01:56 pm UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - [info]pantherwill, 2006-06-03 07:39 pm UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - (Anonymous), 2006-05-17 08:21 am UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - [info]alexlucard, 2006-05-22 02:34 am UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - (Anonymous), 2006-05-20 03:59 pm UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - [info]alexlucard, 2006-05-22 02:32 am UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - (Anonymous), 2006-05-22 08:40 am UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - [info]alexlucard, 2006-05-22 08:56 pm UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - (Anonymous), 2006-05-24 05:26 pm UTC
Re: "I am NOT a vampire hunter" - [info]alexlucard, 2006-05-24 05:33 pm UTC

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Mass action on selected comments:

Welcome, [info]alexlucard!