In April 2007, Catherine Fearnley and Barbara Green were received into the Roman Catholic Church who strongly advised them to have no contact with David Farrant and not to discuss Mr Farrant on the internet. After briefly cutting ties with Mr Farrant, the temptation proved too much for Mrs Green and she soon returned to openly participate in Mr Farrant’s online vendetta against Bishop Seán Manchester while providing Mr Farrant with her daily support on various blogs and forums irregardless of what the Roman Catholic Church might think about her actions.
Miss Fearnley wrote to Bishop Seán Manchester on 9 February 2009:
“Barbara should be ashamed of herself for even being associated with Farrant and company seeing as it’s totally against our Roman Catholic Church doctrine. I am quite well aware of what they mean by ‘rollicking revelations’ and again they should both be ashamed of themselves. Nothing absolutely nothing has gone on between me and any priest and Barbara should be ashamed for spreading lies and nasty rumours about. She will be the one who is sorry in the end, not myself. She will be the one who is ultimately judged for her actions. But I will let the Catholic Church deal with her and with Farrant for that matter.”
In the three years prior to her becoming a confirmed and baptised member of the Roman Catholic Church, Catherine Fearnley supported Mr Farrant’s hate campaign more than anyone, posting seriously harmful libel and illegally uploading private legal papers, albeit doctored, and occasionally items such as documents created by Mr Farrant. She went to extraordinary lengths and made it her full time occupation, as she was largely unemployed throughout this period. She declared herself to be pagan. Mr Farrant supposedly initiated her into witchcraft despite the fact that he had abandoned being a witch himself twenty years earlier and had stated that he no longer believed in it.
Miss Fearnley famously declared that “once a pagan always a pagan” during her witchcraft days (2004-2007), but this was all to change when she converted to Catholicism and claimed to have put her past behind her.
On 17 February 2009, she wrote to Bishop Manchester: “I’m glad that we’ve been able to put the past behind us and move on.” On 23 July 2009, Miss Fearnley agreed: “It is best to leave the rest behind. Move on get away from it.” And that is how it remained until the summer of 2010 when she became acquainted with Anthony Hogg, an Australian stalker of the bishop who is totally obsessed with anyone thought to be connected with the Highgate Cemetery case, which took place before he or indeed Miss Fearnley were born. Due to her past association with David Farrant, the Australian persuaded her to return to discussing matters in public she had supposedly moved away from and left behind. He interviewed her not once, but twice with barely a week and a half between each interview. Flame wars broke out on The Supernatural World forum with all three getting involved, and they all continued to refer to their differences on their own blogs. A can of worms that should have been left alone had once again been opened.
Catherine Fearnley’s second interview with Anthony Hogg now follows and, as with her first interview, it is interpolated with corrections in red.
Anthony Hogg: There are frequent claims that the Bishop uses aliases online. Indeed, the Bishop confirms it, but without saying what they are [not true, he actually gives his net name]. In light of your background with The Cross and the Stake forum, could you tell us any of them? Conversely, do you believe that Dennis Crawford and Katrina Garforth-Bles are actual personages who use the forum?
Catherine Fearnley: I RECEIVED AN EMAIL ONCE FROM BISHOP MANCHESTER SAYING THAT IT’S ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE NOBODY KNOWS IT’S ME WHO IS POSTING ON THESE FORUMS HIS WORDS NOT MINE. I STUPIDLY DELETED THIS EMAIL BUT NOT BEFORE I GAVE MR. FARRANT A COPY OF THIS EMAIL WHICH HE SHOULD STILL HAVE. I KNOW THAT DENNIS CRAWFORD IS A GENUINE PERSON, WHY, BECAUSE ONE NIGHT MR. FARRANT SAID THAT DENNIS CRAWFORD APPEARED AT HIS APARTMENT/FLAT WITH MR. MANCHESTER (AS HE WAS THEN) WHICH TOOK ME BY SURPRISE BECAUSE MR. FARRANT HAD ALWAYS CLAIMED PREVIOUSLY DENNIS CRAWFORD WAS AN ALIAS. I AM NOT TOO SURE ABOUT KATRINA GARFORTH-BLES SO I CAN’T SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. Bishop Manchester made no such stipulation. Due to Miss Fearnley’s total lack of knowledge on topics being raised by members he assisted by generously answering questions for her which allowed her to take the credit. Even so, Miss Fearnley’s contribution was negligible, and her comments were almost non-existent on the forum she was allowed to moderate for a brief period. Mr Farrant claims that a young student appeared at where he lives in Muswell Hill Road, claiming to be Dennis Crawford, but denies that Bishop Manchester accompanied him. The young student could not have been the real Dennis Crawford who is the same age as the bishop and has known him for half a century. Katrina Garforth-Bles has known the bishop since the mid-Seventies.
AH: You mentioned that Farrant asked you to “make posts against Bishop Manchester which were of a derogatory nature so he wouldn’t have to put his name to them”. What kind of posts where these? Are they still in circulation, online or otherwise?
CF: YES THIS IS WHAT MR. FARRANT ASKED ME TO DO MAKE POSTS ON HIS BEHALF, SOME OF THESE WILL INDEED BE ONLINE STILL I HAVE KEPT A COPY OF SOME OF THESE POSTS IN A NOTEBOOK THAT I HAD AT THE TIME WHICH I STILL HAVE AND NO I’M NOT GOING TO PUBLISH ANY OF THE MATERIAL ONLINE. BUT HAVING SAID THAT BISHOP MANCHESTER ALSO GAVE ME POSTS TO WRITE ABOUT MR. FARRANT SO THAT HE WOULDN’T HAVE TO LIKE I SAID PREVIOUSLY THEY ARE AS BAD AS EACH OTHER. It is completely false for Miss Fearnley to claim that Bishop Manchester gave her “posts to write about Mr Farrant.” Either she is saying things Mr Hogg wants to hear, or is suffering from an extremely poor memory. It is a matter of public record that Miss Fearnley regularly posted on the internet hateful material about Bishop Manchester on Mr Farrant’s behalf. Much of this remains online, and little if anything has been done to remove any of it.
AH: You wrote a work called The Highgate Vampire and Me. However, I’ve seen no details of its publication, so could you give us an insight into its general contents? Also, is it true that the manuscript was sent along to VRS-friendly sources and, if so, why?
CF: YES I DID START TO WRITE A BOOK TITLED THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE AND ME THIS WAS OF COURSE AFTER ALL THE MALICIOUS STUFF THAT MR. FARRANT HAD WRITTEN ABOUT MYSELF, AND HE AT THE TIME SAID HE WAS GOING TO PUBLISH A BOOK ABOUT ME. THE GENERAL CONTENTS WERE ABOUT MY RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. FARRANT, AQUAINTENCE WITH BISHOP MANCHESTER, THE WHOLE HIGHGATE THING AND OF COURSE THE ROBIN HOOD NONSENSE THE FULL WORKS. I SENT THE BOOK TO VRS BASICALLY BECAUSE BISHOP MANCHESTER WAS GOING TO BE MENTIONED AND ALSO I WANTED TO CORRECT ANY OF THE DATES/TIMES EVENTS AND TO GIVE BISHOP MANCHESTER THE CHANCE TO ALTER ANYTHING OUT OF PURE COURTESY. THIS WAS NOT OF COURSE GOING TO HAPPEN TO MR. FARRANT WHO HAD ALREADY MENTIONED HIS BOOK THAT HE HAD WRITTEN ABOUT ME. Nobody known to Bishop Manchester received a copy of Miss Fearnley’s manuscript with its bizarre title. How can she possibly write about a case when she was not born when it occurred? A much better and far more accurate title would surely have been Mr Farrant and Me.
AH: You believe that the Highgate Vampire Case was a hoax. What motivations do you think its primary participants had in creating it? Do you think there was any collaboration between its two main sides at any point?
CF: I HAVE ALREADY SAID PREVIOUSLY WHY IT WAS A HOAX, BASICALLY BECAUSE ALL THE EVIDENCE STEMS BACK TO THE TWO MAIN INSTIGATORS, NO INDIVIDUAL PERSON HAS COME FORWARD, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT BISHOP MANCHESTER HAS TAPES/CD’S WHERE MR. FARRANT CAN BE HEARD DISCUSSING THE HOAX IN GREAT DETAIL, I HAVE HEARD SOME OF THESE INTERVIEWS AT SOME TIME OR OTHER. Once again, Miss Fearnley is saying exactly what Mr Hogg wants to hear, which contradicts what Miss Fearnley has said in preceding years. It is true that the bishop is in possession of secret tape-recordings courtesy of Mr Farrant’s collaborator circa 1969-1970 where Mr Farrant can be heard conspiring with “Hutchinson” (as he was called by Mr Farrant in the media) to fake a ghost story. It is also true that Mr Farrant played no part in the investigation of the Highgate Cemetery case. But Miss Fearnley is absolutely wrong when she claims that “no individual person has come forward” to give witness to the manifestation known as the Highgate Vampire. A great many came forward. Some are identified in The Highgate Vampire book; others have appeared in television programmes and in film documentaries about the case. Having been the girlfriend of a hoaxer for three years, and having never met Bishop Manchester, makes Miss Fearnley less qualified to discuss the merits of the case than she imagines.
AH: What twigged you onto the idea that the Case was a hoax at all? When did you start suspecting something was “fishy” with either side?
CF: COME ON HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN VAMPIRES CHANGE INTO GIANT SPIDERS, APPEAR AT GATES WITH RED EYES AND APPEARS AS A MISTY SHAPE THAT DRAINS ENERGY. RUBBISH. How many people do you know who have seen miracles occur and the dead resurrected? Yet Christians are expected to believe in such things. Christians also believe in the existence of demons and supernatural evil to which vampires (predatory demonic entities that manifest as the dead) belong. How many people take seriously mediums and clairvoyants such as Derek Acorah? Miss Fearnley does, even after joining the Roman Catholic Church, which prohibits spiritualism and mediumship. Asking “how many people do you know claim to have seen” something that is the experience of a particular individual confronted by the supernatural phenomenon in question is a pointless argument which could be applied to anything not scientifically proven, including just about all that is taught by Miss Fearnley’s Roman Catholic Church.
AH: After your role as Secretary for the BPOS was terminated, you were replaced by Patsy Langley, the author of The Highgate Vampire Casebook Files (2007). Did you have any interaction with her prior? If so, do you think she’s a suitable replacement? What qualifications do you think one needs to be a BPOS Secretary?
CF: YES PATSY AND MYSELF WERE FRIENDS AT THE TIME OBVIOUSLY THINGS DIDN’T WORK OUT I WILL NOT GO INTO PERSONAL DETAILS HERE. IT DOES NOT MATTER ONE IOTA IF I THINK SHE IS A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT OR NOT, SHE’S WELCOME TO IT. WELL AS TO QUALIFICATIONS TO BE BPOS SECRETARY YOU DON’T NEED ANY APART FROM BEING WILLING TO DO MR. FARRANTS DIRTY WORK FOR HIM. Patsy Langley is more than willing to do Mr Farrant’s dirty work for him. Her pamphlet (described as a “casebook”) is nothing more than yet another illicit publication from Mr Farrant’s stable. He edited it and self-published it from his own address. It contains the usual defamation and stolen images. Bishop Manchester warned her of copyright infringement. She, by way of response, falsely claimed on the internet to have had the police warn the bishop. Miss Fearnley, in correspondence to the bishop, later confirmed that Patsy Langley had confided to her that she was lying about the police warning the bishop. The police, in fact, had told Patsy Langley they would not waste any of their time on her nonsense.
AH: Shortly after our first interview, you were targetted by the FoBSM. As was I. Do you think this shady group does more harm than help for the Bishop? Do you think he should be more vocal about their actions?
CF: I THINK THAT THE FOBSM ARE INDEED A DANGEROUS GROUP AS ARE THE VAMPIRE RESEARCH SOCIETY AS ARE THE BPOS. BUT THE FOBSM DEFINITELY DO MORE HARM THEN GOOD AND IF I WERE BISHOP MANCHESTER I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHY ASSUMING OF COURSE HE ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING TARGETTED. All the FoBSM did was enquire why Miss Fearnley had suddenly turned on the bishop. We pointed out the many errors in her interview where it related to Bishop Manchester. A carbon copy was sent by email to Anthony Hogg so there could be no confusion over what we were saying about his interview with her. Unsurprisingly, neither party have quoted any of our challenges to the interview’s accuracy. Catherine Fearnley has in common with Anthony Hogg the habit of making a statement without providing a shred of supporting evidence. She offers no explanation as to why the Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester and the Vampire Research Society are deemed to be “dangerous” by her. Again, it was exactly what Mr Hogg wanted to hear. To offer rebuttals with evidence is now apparently “targetting” people and absurdly considered “dangerous.” Have neither of these people stopped to consider that it is they who are targetting Bishop Seán Manchester?
AH: You’ve left the Highgate Case behind you.
CF: YES I’VE WELL AND TRULY LEFT THE HIGHGATE CASE AND IT’S PARTICIPENTS WELL AND TRULY BEHIND. Well, of course, Bishop Manchester heard that claim many times over the last three years from Miss Fearnley, and here we are defending the bishop again from the same old defamation as before. Where will it all end? Perhaps, in closing, we should remind Miss Fearnley of her own words written to Bishop Manchester in correspondence just over a year ago: