Or maybe it's possible that once a vampire "loses interest" in someone, they also lose interest.  Since he no longer had "need" of Sabrina, that psychic link was broken. 

Gerard

Or Sabrina, who finally got sick and tired of brother dear, splashed him with A-1 steak sauce and shoved him into Chris' room one full-moon night.

Gerard

Oh, you've said it!  Nothing like Reese's peanut butter eggs!  I'm hoping the Easter Bunny dumps tons of those on me!!!!

Gerard

This is my take on what happened in the unchanged time which brought about the haunting of Collinwood by Gerard/Judah in 1970.  Gerard/Judah solidifies (in 1840) his plan of revenge against the Collinses for what happened in 1692 through some of the manipulations we had seen, particularly framing Quentin allowing him to be executed.  Now he is lord and master of Collinwood and tries to take complete control.  Since Tad is the heir apparent of the estate, being the son of Quentin, Gerard/Judah must deal with him, but Tad resists, joined by Carrie and their governess Daphne (did Gerard and Daphne actually marry in the unchanged past? - debateable).  In an effort to isolate them, he takes them to Rose Cottage where some sort of battle goes on, resulting in all their deaths.  The lineage now passes to the next son, Gabriel (and his wife Edith; remember that there would've been no need for either to die the way they did without things being altered), and his children.  From them come the descendents leading down to Elizabeth, Roger, Carolyn and David.  The spirits of Judah/Gerard, Daphne, Tad and Carrie remained in a sort-of "stasis" until a catalyst allowed Gerard/Judah's enraged ghost - along with Daphne's, Tad's and Carrie's - to become active so Gerard/Judah could again exact his incompleted vengance, in this case the catalyst being the arrival of Hallie Stokes (well, Hallie arriving anywhere would drive anyone into a rage).

Gerard

Beyond the fact that the illustrations in the Gold Key comic series were simply ghastly, one thing that irked me was that Barnabas (or the thing drawn to look like Barnabas) virtually ALWAYS wore his cape-coat.  He never took it off.  Day or night, it was on.  Whatever season, it was on.  If he was having tea at Collinwood with Liz (who looked like Madam from Waylan and Madam after a nose job), it was on.  When he slept in his coffin (if he was a vampire in a particular story), it was on.  When he travelled in time to no matter what century, it was on.  I recall only a couple panels where he didn't have that thing on in almost the entire collection I had purchased.  For cryin' out loud what was he, a nun who couldn't take off her habit?

Gerard

Quote

Is it that there's another section for paying members?

Nope. There are no such sections.

Well, then, MB, explain to me why you told me I have to keep sending you ten bucks a month if I want to stay a member of this illustrious board?  Huh? 

Gerard

As much as I love the 1795/96 story, the pushing of the historical envelope by having a trial for witchcraft always irked me.  No matter how superstitious some of the residents of Collinsport might have been, trying someone (and executing them, no less) for witchcraft, in historical accuracy, just would not have happened.  But.....there could've been a way around it.  Trask and his disciples, let's say, wanted a witchcraft trial but knew that no matter what legal shenanigans they attempted would not make it happen, so they decide to attack it from another angle.  Instead of Vicki (or Phyllis) being tried for witchcraft, why not have her tried for murder, using witchcraft as a tool?  They could argue:  okay, we all know that witchcraft was used and we also know that it no longer is a crime to practice it.  However, it is a crime to murder and we can prove that witchcraft was the tool to commit it.  So, we'll prove that Vicki was a witch - which ain't no crime - and she used it to kill (in this case Jeremiah and the hosts of others dropping dead all around) and that is a crime.  After all, it's not a crime to own and use a gun, but it is a crime to murder someone with it.  It's not a crime to own a hatchet, but it is a crime to murder someone with it.  It's not a crime to have two hands, but it is a crime to strangle someone with them. 

If the writers had used that approach, not only would it have been more historically accurate, but would've been even more interesting, IMO.  I won't even get into the whole witchcraft trial in 1840/41. 

Gerard

Gerard - love the story of your former place of employment.  I don't suppose you care to share with us the name of the mansion and its location?

Because the apparent haunting is somewhat of a "secret" among people involved in the museum (staff, former staff, etc.) as knowledge of it would be an "embarrassment", I really can't provide the name here, but if you send me a private e-mail requesting it, I'd be happy to oblige!

Gerard