Sunday, January 20, 2019

Anonymous Author Threat: Petrol Bomb



What do you note about this letter's language? 

updated photo = more information 




from BBC:


More than a dozen churches have been sent "threatening letters" bearing a West Midlands postmark, with one letter warning of a petrol bomb attack.
West Midlands Police is investigating and said churches and supermarkets in the region and further afield had been targeted "over a period of months".
In one handwritten letter, threats were made to "petrol bomb" services and stab congregation members "one by one".
A priest from Sheffield described the letter he had received as "horrifying".
Each letter bears a West Midlands postmark, the BBC understands.
Parish priest Father Andrew Browne, of St Mary's Church in High Green, Sheffield, received a letter on 4 January. 
He said: "It looked like just an ordinary handwritten letter on the outside. 
"But when I opened it and read what it said, the horror of what it could entail became clear."
Fr Browne said he was told at least 15 letters had been received by churches nationally during a Bishops' conference last week.
He added West Midlands Police took over the investigation from the South Yorkshire force after discovering all the letters originated from the region.
In a statement the force said: "West Midlands Police is investigating after several threatening letters have been sent to mainly churches and supermarkets across the region and officers are aware of a few sent further afield over a period of months. 
"Enquiries remain ongoing."
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales said it could not comment on an ongoing police investigation.

94 comments:

John mcgowan said...


Threat to 'petrol bomb' church during service made in West Midlands
The threatening letter was one of several sent to churches and supermarkets across the region, according to police


The handwritten note, which was received by Father Andrew Browne, of St Mary's Church in High Green, Sheffield, on January 4, read: "Stop all your services straight away.
"If you don't your church will be petrol bombed while in service.
"Continue behind closed doors, your congregation will be stabbed one by one.

"Blood on your hands. You have been warned".


https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/.../letter-threatening...

Lucia D said...

The author doesn't seem very committed to his threats. The threats are made in a passive way, and the pronoun I never enters the author's language.

General P. Malaise said...

distancing language and passivity as Lucia D. has noted. no pronouns, not "I" or "we".

the referenced to "behind closed doors" may indicate a same sex attraction element which is frequently found in anonymous letters.

I looked for more on this and it appears the media only wish to show this portion.

Anonymous said...


It wasn't addressed to anybody in particular, which means it is not personally motivated, and the person is not that familar with the Church as far as knowing who the father of it is, so could suggest they are not too local to it..saying it will be bombed while in service suggests the person is not very intelligent, there will be more people around during services, which means more chance of being seen and stopped.

Sloppy grammar, the writer doesn't say insert "If you" before continue behind closed doors", it's rather shorthandedly done, meaning they are not that serious or commited, which might suggest they are writing other threats, so they were in a hurry to get to the next one.

I am not really versed in SA but just my own observations.

General P. Malaise said...

Parish priest Father Andrew Browne, of St Mary's Church in High Green, Sheffield, received a letter on 4 January.
He said: "It looked like just an ordinary handwritten letter on the outside.
"But when I opened it and read what it said, the horror of what it could entail became clear."

I think the parish priest's language adds more intrigue. "just an ordinary handwritten letter" ....me thinks he can possible share more with us.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It wasn't addressed to anybody in particular, which means it is not personally motivated


don't be too quick to dismiss someone close.

for one thing the entire letter isn't posted.

Anonymous said...

Oh and to add to the final part "you have been warned" there is past tense there, should it not be "you are being warned" suggesting they are not serious, or that they have already decided that they are not really going to do any of these threats...

John mcgowan said...

"Continue behind closed doors"

What does this mean?s

That it includes "closed doors," is this a red flag that maybe there is some sort of abuse going on?

Anonymous said...

First word is "stop". Did someone (a member of the catholic church?) do something specific/personal to the writer that he/she wanted to stop?

First sentence is "stop all your services straight away". Why not simply say: stop your services (without "all" and without "straight away")? Could "services" have an additional, subconscious meaning to the writer (i.e. other than church services)? Another word for service is favor. Was the writer subjected to unwelcome favors? If so, of what nature? Why does the writer add "straight away"? He could have just left it out or added "immediately". Why these particular words? Another word for straight is heterosexual. If the "straightness" is "away", does it mean "gay"? Was the writer subjected to unwelcome gay "favors"? In other words, is the writer a man who was sexually abused by someone within the catholic church? This phrase may also be a subconscious warning to the writer himself: stop your practices right away (he knows that sending these letters is wrong).

Why "petrol" bombed? Is it a man (stereotyping here)? Does the writer work at a gas station or otherwise work with petrol in his daily life? The word "petrol" may also be a subconscious reference to something/someone else. For instance a name of a person or a role within the catholic church. Another word for "bombed" is "drunk" or "stoned". Did the writer write the letters under the influence of alcohol/drugs? Does he have a problem with addiction?

"continue behind closed doors". Something may have continually happened to the writer behind closed doors. The word immediately preceding this phrase is "service". Did the above mentioned "favors" happen to the writer behind closed doors?

"congragation" is spelled incorrectly. Sometimes spelling errors reveal clues.

Repeated use of the word "your": your services, your church, your congragation [sic], your hands. What does it mean? I think the writer's grudge may ultimately not be with the catholic church itself but with a particular person that he knows through the catholic church. For some reason the writer cannot talk about what really bothers him deep down. His frustrations need to find a way out, however, and this is how he chooses to do it.

I agree with Lucia D's comments above. I also think the writer purposely left out all references to himself. He obliterates himself and doesn't want to leave clues about himself.

"members will be stabbed one by one". Why does the writer add "one by one"? One at a time... Is he revealing that he is one person and not part of a group? Does it have an additional meaning? Also: why the change in attack method? Why does he threaten to stab church members one by one if the services are continued behind closed doors? Can he not "petrol bomb" the church in that case? Why not? Is he not a member of the church? Could he not become a member and attend the closed door services? Why not? It all doesn't seem very logical and thought out.

"blood on your hands". I feel this refers to something that happened in the past. This because the writer does not say "you will have blood on your hands". "you" already has blood in his/her/their hands. One or more persons did something to the writer with his/her/their hands.

"(you have been warned)". This comes as an afterthought as in: By the way, I already warned you. Maybe the writer warned "you" (i.e. (a) particular person(s)) before.

Another thing I noticed: the writer uses no punctuation

Autumn

John mcgowan said...

Or has been in the past and it;s a victim.

Anonymous said...


It's possible it's a sexual reference..but being in the UK myself it is not that uncommon for English people to use the expression behind closed doors, it's not that uncommon.

Anonymous said...

Could this be an inside job? It looks like a generic letter as it is not addressed to anyone particular individual. The quality of the threat seems passive, distant and conditional. In order it says, YOUR services, YOUR church, YOUR congregation (members which is unnecessary and potential familiar language) Blood on YOUR hands, YOU'VE been warned. Who is YOUR and YOU'VE? Males are the one's who tend to issue direct threats. The quality of the threat is weak and there is a lack of commitment to it. The lanagauge towards the recipient appears distant and neutral. The quality of the threat is poor, generic and not genuine. There is a need to persuade in the letter. The words "services," and "congregation members" seem to suggest familiarity.

Bobcat said...

The cheap & short: SIDI (Smelt it, dealt it)

I know that's not good enough for classwork though. ;-)

Hey Jude said...

The handwritten note, which was received by Father Andrew Browne, of St Mary's Church in High Green, Sheffield, on January 4, read:

"Stop all your services straight away.

"If you don't your church will be petrol bombed while in service.


"Continue behind closed doors, your congregation will be stabbed one by one.

"Blood on your hands. You have been warned".

----

The context is that anonymous notes have been received by churches, some further afield, and supermarkets, over several months. I don't think there have been reports of petrol bombed churches or stabbed church members/shoppers over the past few months.

As it is an excerpt, we don't know if a page preceded it, or therefore if the author introduced himself in any way, or indicated if the priest was personally known to him.

The author demands "Stop all your church services" but also introduces the element of time "straight away". The author anticipates that the threat of petrol bombing will not deter the priest from holding services in the immediate future, and goes on, "If you don't your church will be petrol bombed while in service". The repetition of 'service' makes the church's services sensitive to the author. The 'church' can refer to the building or to the people, Here it is most likely the people which is intended, as it is they who would be "in service".

"Continue behind closed doors, your congregation will be stabbed one by one." The author anticipates that the priest's reaction might be to lock the church doors during services to guard against a petrol bomb being thrown in? It is af it to suggest that the threat, though seeming from outside, is actually from the inside - if the petrol bomb is thwarted, he/she will stab the congregation instead? In order to do so, he would need to be inside the building. Again, the threat is to 'the congregation', rather than to the priest. If he continues to hold services, but behind closed doors, his congregation will be stabbed "one by one". This is not a very realistic threat, as an attacker would soon be overcome by a congregation unwilling to be stabbed "one by one".

"Blood on your hands. You have been warned". The author does not specify that there *will be* blood on your hands, which is an interesting omission. In one sense, there is always 'blood' on a priest's hands, due to offering the sacrifice of the Mass, during which Catholics believe the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ. It is the services, or (most often) Mass, which the writer wants stopped.

The threat is to the congregation, rather than to the priest. There is no stated motive, nor hate speech, or apparent animosity.

There are six 'you' and 'your' pronouns related to the priest, and none to the author. The author is taking care to conceal identity, not claiming to be acting alone or part of a group' yet "one by one" does seem to suggest that the author is acting alone.

----

The author may know the priest as he/she anticipates his response will be of continuing church services, even if behind locked doors.
The author may have a reason to want church services stopped - is he or she trying to get out of or delay an expensive wedding or first communion? Is he or she jealous of people in the congregation, and hoping to scare them, or some particular among them, away? Are the multiple letters a cover to throw off which priest and congregation is the intended target? I think the element of time "straight away" is significant - is there some event which the author does not want to go ahead in one of the churches?

Anonymous said...

Did you see the hysteria the media created against those catholic teenagers? And the vile Daily Mail UK accusing them of HATE. Reporting and spreading a false narrative out of context that brought threats of violence and expulsion fron from school. The vile daily mail posts articles frequently filled with spelling errors and ridiculous content but todays smear headline was another level and perhaps criminal. Will there ever be accountability?

Anonymous said...

Dailymail headline said PURE HATE describing the teenagers in the now debunked story. Now I cant find the headline story. Looks like it was removed or changed.

Chris said...

OT: There is a new POI in the Indiana case of the 2 teens killed near the railroad bridge.

Anonymous said...

I looked online for more anonymous letters in this case and found nothing. So why is this letter published and not the others? Like Hey Jude I wondered whether the multiple letters are a cover to throw off which priest and congregation is the intended target. Could this letter be the only one published because police thinks this particular church (i.e. Saint Mary's Catholic Church, 15 Mortomley La, Sheffield S35 3HS, UK) is the intended target?

Could the letters be written by a neighbor of this church? I looked the church up on Google Maps and saw that one of its neighbors is "encapsulated" between the church and a supermarket (Sainsbury's). Interestingly, the address is 11 Mortomley lane. Eleven = "one by one". The house is situated in the same street (street = "straight") and right next to the church ("straight" next to the church). So when the writer starts with: "stop your services straight away" he may be saying: I want you to stop all your services immediately because I live in the same street straight next to you. (My apologies to the occupant(s) of this home if my suggestion is wrong.)

Maybe the threat is to the congregation rather than to the priest because the writer is bothered by the noise the church members and their cars make whenever they attend church services? But noise may not be the only complaint. The said house borders almost directly on the parking lots of both the church and supermarket. Could the writer be bothered by the petrol odor generated by the cars on these lots (he/she is "petrol bombed" so to speak)? Also: is he/she constantly keeping an eye on the church from behind closed doors/windows ("continue behind closed doors")?

It would be interesting to know whether the church received complaints recently ("youve [sic] been warned") and whether the Sainsbury's supermarket also received a letter and/or complaints.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Further to my previous comment: revenge often takes the form of the (perceived) inflicted abuse. In this case, the writer threatens to petrol bomb the church. Does the writer feel "petrol bombed" by the congregation of the church (i.e. the exhaust fumes of their cars)?

Other words for "stabbed" are: "attacked" and "harmed" (see here). The writer says: "your congragation members will be stabbed one by one". If we leave out the words "will be", the phrase becomes: your congregation members stabbed one by one. Is he/she subconsciously revealing that he/she, the person at number eleven ("one by one"), feels attacked/harmed by the congregation members?

Autumn

Anonymous said...

One more comment: the house at 11 Mortomley lane does not seem to border on the main parking lot of the church but on a smaller parking lot that seems to provide access to St Mary's Catholic Club, a social club/pub connected to the church. According to online information, the bar is only open to members ("services" behind "closed doors"?).

Autumn

Anonymous said...

The writer ends the letter with "(youve been warned)". Youve is spelled incorrectly. He/she did not write "you've" or "you have". Spelling errors sometimes reveal clues. If it is indeed the St Mary's Catholic Club rather than the St. Mary's Church (or the catholic church in general) that is targeted, could it be that this club is mainly attended by young congregation members? In that case the spelling error ("(youve been warned)") may be a secret tell that the "youth" of the church has already been warned by the writer. Maybe it's too far-fetched. I don't know, it's just a thought that crossed my mind.

Autumn

Hey Jude said...

Nice sleuthing, Autumn - I couldn't resist looking at what you pointed out on Google maps. I would not be surprised if the author was a neighbour. To add to your observations- that house does not appear to have any off-road parking, and there are double yellow lines out front, so no convenient place to park outside the house either, That could be annoying, especially if there are visitors. as it is surrounded by car parks, one with a notice stating "parking is for church members only"- the Sainsbury's one would be only for customers use. Car parks everywhere, yet nowhere to park for whoever lives in that house, or visitors. The house is older than both buildings.

----

The car park would be fullest during the services - it's the services the author wants stopped - it could be a parking issue.

----

There was a case a few years ago when someone poisoned the coffee after the morning service at an English parish church. I don't remember if anyone died, or if the identity of the poisoner was discovered, but I bet that was due to something as petty seeming as parking or a flower rota.

The writer of the petrol bomb note is not committing himself, or anyone else, to carrying out the threats, and avoids identifying himself - he doesn't want to give any clues - I think the numerous letters are meant to obscure who the intended target is. Target of what, though?

---

PS. Amber - Have you noticed yet that you added a word - the note does not say congregation 'members' - just 'congregation'. :-).

Hey Jude said...

^^ I meant Autumn, sorry

Anonymous said...

News companies False reporting all week.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, the comments you posted yesterday made me think. E.g. how the multiple letters could be a cover and how the congregation was the target rather than the priest, etc. These things may have briefly crossed my mind before but I think I perhaps jumped to the sexual abuse conclusion a bit too quickly. I guess that (i.e. abuse) is what I associate the catholic church with given all the news about it in the past years. I've also watched a Netflix documentary on this topic ("The Keepers") recently.

I'm not sure, but I don't think the writer intends to actually bomb or stab the congregation members. If it is indeed a neighbor, he/she is probably very angry at an ongoing situation very close to home. He/she cannot escape it and the anger keeps building and building. He/she doesn't know how to deal with it anymore, feels powerless and this is how he/she takes revenge.

I saw a facebook post of February 14, 2017 saying that entertainment would be starting at the St. Mary's Catholic Club in the very near future. The club is right next to the house. So if it is (primarily or also) the Club members who cause noise and pollution, it maybe a relatively recent situation. The club was also broken into on September 30, 2017 (not suggesting this was done by the writer). A number of items including cash were stolen.

The letter actually says congregation "members", see here. I believe different transcripts of the letter are in circulation. It's a bit confusing.

Amber....Eh, I mean Autumn (just kidding :-))

Anonymous said...

Is anyone following the story of the Catholic teens falsely accused by media?

Hey Jude said...

Autumn - The author doesn't say that he, or we, they, or anyone will petrol bomb the church, or stab the congregation - no agency is ascribed to the threatened actions. it seems he wants to scare them, but has no real hope the priest will stop his services. I agree that he feels powerless is likely - it's an impotent expression of anger - the author is obsessed with whatever caused him to write that many notes, yet does not want to put himself into it, or to be discovered.

Thanks for the link to the other note, where indeed he does say 'congregation members' - why is 'you've been warned' in brackets? I wonder if that note is later or earlier than the one included here. Maybe the author dwelled on the note and considered that a congregation is a gathering, like one thing - It maybe wouldn't quite make sense to stab a gathering or congregation, but it is made more specific with 'one by one' - the abstract like 'congregation' is separated into individuals. Still not satisfied at the idea of stabbing a congregation, even 'one by one', he adds 'congregation members'. If he reasons so, which I don't know, he could be the type who frets over making himself understood, and over details. Just a suggestion - I don't know in what order the notes were written. If the other way round, he maybe was fed up with the repetition and missed out a word to make it shorter.

I have looked up the church website - it has not been updated since June 2018. Abandoned in favour of Facebook? It's a long time to not be updated or taken offline. Strange, as it appears a very active church.

Disappointingly, It turns out the church coffee poisoning was not in England, it was in Maine, New England.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, isn't it one and the same note? Maybe the writer says "members" because the St. Mary Catholic Club is a members only club? Maybe he wanted to join the club but wasn't admitted (I don't really think so)? Maybe he/she sees the members coming by (looking at them from behind his door/windows) every time there is a service/entertainment activity? He sees them going in the Club/Church one by one, he sees them coming out one by one. His irritation/frustration rises with every member coming by. The writer absolutely seems like the fretting type, but doesn't seem to care much about punctuation (I therefore had to carefully read the letter to understand what it actually says and which word belongs to which sentence). Like you I had noticed that it seems a very active church (made a very positive impression). A church coffee poisoning seems exactly the sort of thing that could have happened in the English countryside. It sounds like something straight out of a British Detective series or Agatha Christie novel. I don't know why the writer put "youve been warned" between brackets. It seems like a sort of afterthought. Maybe it's a subconscious way of diminishing his warning?

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Talking in a circle.

Anonymous said...

The dingo gets blamed for Azaria Chamberlain's death again in this article. I don't think a dingo killed her. Based on a.o. the mother's below statements (bold highlights and capital words added by me) I think she accidentally dropped the baby on her head near the entrance of their tent. It probably happened while she opened (or closed?) the zipper of the tent door and/or tripped over a shoe(-lace) of her husband. Just my opinion. For entire statement see here.

"We both climbed in the tent. And he got his parka off and dumped it near the door of the tent, where Reagan's was, and started to get himself into bed. I put Azaria down and tucked her in. I put her down in the things I had her wrapped in, and just put a blanket over the top.
(…)
And I thought, It's got Michael's shoes, because his shoes were right beside the door. (…) It put its head down.'

(…)
'It was still inside the tent, its head was out, and it was trying to get something through the doorway and swinging its head around, now with its head down. That's what made me think it was a shoe, and I thought, He's got it by the shoelace, and it'd be swinging, and he can't get it through the door. The dog wanted to get out. It was unzipped, not only down the middle, but at both sides, across the bottom.
And I yelled
at it, because I thought it would DROP the shoe. As soon as I saw it, I started to run. And I yelled. I can't remember what I said. But I think I said, "Get out." Or, "Go." I think I said, "Go on," to it. Sort of yelled, "Go on, get out."
Then I realized. I thought to myself, the kids. There's no food in there. The shoes. And I thought, well, she cried. So he must have disturbed her. And then it sort of flashed through my mind that they're wild. When she first went to sleep, she would sleep very heavily, and he would have to actually touch her to disturb her. I thought, well, a wild dog. It could have bitten her. The only thing visible is her head. She'll need, she'll need, first-aid. As soon as I reached the front of the tent, I could see the blankets scattered. Instinct told me that she wasn't there, the dog had her, but my head told me it wasn't possible. Dingoes don't do such things, and this was, you know, just beyond the realms of reason. And I dived into the tent just to make sure. I could see from the door that she wasn't there
[NOTE: as in: dead?]. But my mind wouldn't accept it. And I dived in, actually felt in the cradle for her, to make sure she wasn't there [NOTE: as in: dead?]. And as I backed out of the tent I felt with my hands, in the blankets that were scattered, and the sleeping-bag, just in case I frightened it off, and he DROPPED HER, and one of the blankets was completely covering her. Being so tiny she didn't make much of a bundle. And if he DROPPED HER?

Autumn

tania cadogan said...

Aren't churches supposed to have open doors?
Church services even to weddings have to keep their doors open.
This then introduces what goes on behind closed doors?
Were they banned from a church?
Are they a victim of someone in the church, hence the behind closed doors?

Anonymous said...

Supposed to have open doors, why?

Anonymous said...

Diesnt make sense.

General P. Malaise said...

churches used to have open doors.

democracy can only work in a moral society. it doesn't work with relativist morality.

tania cadogan said...

In the UK churches were supposed to open so parishioners and visitors could visit at any time to pray, think or just admire the building, unlike the Americans and other newer countries we have churches going back for centuries.
Even the cathedrals are open to visitors to look around and admire the statuary, glass stained windows, craftsmanship and in some, famous burials such as Kings and Queens.
It encourages visitors and much needed money and perhaps the odd visitor become parishioner.

Anonymous said...

I think you are right and agree.

democracy can only work in a moral society. it doesn't work with relativist morality.

Hey Jude said...

OT

Autumn, yes - I see now it is the same note, and it is the transcripts which differ. Maybe only some of the image loaded - I only saw up to 'behind closed doors'.

We have gone outside of SA on the note. :).

The coffee poisoning was very Agatha Christie, and quite shocking it was for real.

Tania, I think it's quite rare for UK churches to lock their doors during worship - I know some do for evening services in very rough areas where hooligans can be a problem, and during The first Mass of Christmas/Midnight Mass, to keep drunks from wandering in, even using the back pews as urinals etc. Doors are often closed once a service begins, but they are not locked - anyone can still enter. I think most church people know that locking the doors during services is not a thing, and would be resisted by the priests, as the church is meant to serve the community. So, unless that's a ploy to make himself seem unfamiliar, that makes me think he is less likely to be a church member than more.

He says 'you' and 'your' of the priest a lot, though, so I think the author knows the priest.

---

Baby Azaria - I don't remember if I have read the mother's statement before now, but I always believed a dingo took the baby - up till now, when it seems something may already have happened to the baby when a dingo took her, if it did.

The mother's statement is so strange - "she slept in the car" (alone overnight?) of a ten week old baby, as if it were the baby's choice - her baby whom at one point, she calls 'it'. Meanwhile that beautiful golden dingo was a bit of a 'rascal'. She doesn't say she saw the dingo take the baby, she only might have seen it had a shoe; she thought to admire the shininess of its golden coat, as you do, when you spot that a dingo is in your tent, along with your son and your ten week old baby. So, that's a bit iffy, and I'm going to read more.

Hey Jude said...

^ Is it normal to take tiny babies camping in freezing conditions, where a pan of water left overnight inside the tent is iced over by the morning? Wouldn't you go to a motel, or return home if it was that cold? I don't think most parents would contemplate leaving a baby and a child in an open tent in freezing conditions, whilst also knowing dingos and camp dogs were roaming around scavenging from the campers. That kid didn't even get his baked beans - she drew attention to the ladies who cleared up not returning the can of beans as 'diplomatic', which is a strange detail amongst many details. The other son she left awake and alone in the tent with his by then sleeping brother, when he must have been in great distress, having learned his sister was apparently taken by a dingo, from the tent in which he was left. The lady "on the fence" couldn't have provided him with much comfort from afar, even if she was quite near. It's all horrendous,

Hey Jude said...

Autumn, from one of Peter's FB posts, the author may have been a victim of clerical sexual abuse or even a perpetrator - so don't dismiss your earlier posts.

---

Not SA, More street view - the presbytery/priest's house is just behind the church - the threat is to the church and congregation rather than to the priest, or to the priest at home, though it wouldn't inspire too much confidence if his congregation were stabbed, or if services had to be held behind closed doors. Maybe someone who attended the church as a child, was abused, no longer attends, has a view of the church and comings and goings, no parking...simmering rage. IDK.

---
In the full photo, the words 'continue' and 'congregation' are in lower case - I think those are quite unusual and distinctive g's. I wonder ae they the author's more usual handwriting. There also appear to be dots, which might be pauses, or intended to emphasise 'in' in 'while in service'? It would be an unusual means of emphasis if that were intended - I think asterisks or underline would be more usual. Are there any handwriting analysts looking in?

---
I'm going to start over, thinking only in terms of SA.

Anonymous said...

The letters in the words “your congregation” are written in a different type of script than the rest of the letter.

Hey Jude said...

Plus 'congregation' is misspelled as 'congragation' and written smaller than the rest. Is 'congregation' a word more likely to be used by those who belong or have belonged to a church? I think it's a common word which everyone knows and would use to refer to church members at a service.- is that so? Why the choice of 'in' service, rather than 'during a service'?

Bobcat said...

Anonymous @ 12:00 AM,

I noticed the same.

The letter is all caps except the writer slips into lower case three times.

StABBED, and the two words that begin with con - continue and (misspelled) congragation

I wonder, does the author frequently write words which include the letter series "St" - possibly as in "St Mary" so often that muscle memory overcame the forced all caps writing?

The bishops conference also begins with the letter series "con"

Could the capitalization change in "con" be the truth slipping out?

Also, aren't ordinary handwritten letters folded in thirds - preferably with a donation inside? I would think the priest would find the envelope lumpy as the "letter" was folded into eigths instead of thirds.


Anonymous said...

OT: Azaria Chamberlain

There is so much in the mother's statement. Where to begin. Yes, she seems to elevate the dingo to mythical proportions. Right from the beginning. How they saw a dingo at the Fertility/Echo Cave looking down on them from a rock for 4 minutes. How it would "usually" follow their movements with its eyes, but at the same time didn't seem to take its eyes of her (i.e. the mother). How she had Azaria sitting on her shoulder at the time, unwrapped and awake. It's all intended to make us think: the dingo had been eyeing my baby for a while! It was out to get my baby! Deep down, however, she may be telling us: don't take your eyes of me, you should be looking at me.

I do think there probably were dingo's in the region and they may have seen one or more of them. And other campers may have told them: they are roaming around for food. I think she wove these and other details into the real story. That's why many people believed she was telling the truth (“how else could her story be so detailed”).

At one point I thought: the baby may have been dead before they went on their trip. One of the first things she says is: “We would have left Tuesday, but the dry-cleaner's had the blankets, (…).” Somebody commented: who dry-cleans their blankets? Indeed, why would you do that, especially right before a camping trip in the outback. By talking about blankets at the beginning of the statement (and MANY times thereafter), she may be subconsciously indicating: expect me to cover up the truth in this statement. Anyway, there are pictures of the mother with Azaria in the outback, so the baby was alive during the first part of the trip.

It’s funny, Hey Jude, that you immediately noticed the “baked bean”-detail. There may be more to it. Based on the mother’s statements, I think this is what may have happened after Azaria’s death:
- The mother thought nobody was going to believe it was an accident. That people were going to think that "I'm either drunk" or "I'm joking"(??).
- Panic, panic (“on the fence” and “climbing over the fence” as in “jumping the fence”?)
- The parents discussed what to do. They decided they wanted police to only find Azaria’s clothes. Not her remains. They didn’t want to see their deceased baby again.
- They put food in the tent (to lure dingoes?) and put on a show for the other campers pretending they had seen a dingo taking something out of the tent (I don't know at which exact stage this took place). A dingo may or may not have approached and/or entered their tent (I believe aboriginals have found tracks).
- They put their baby’s body in a “sleeping-bag” (a plastic bag?) in the back of the car in the middle of the night and drove to a remote place where nobody could see or hear them nor the “barbecue”.
- They (Michael, the husband) burned Azaria’s remains (“baked the bean”). Notice how she goes on and on about torch and torches (she says these words 46(!) times) and how it wouldn’t beam and how it took so long and her references to a “rubbish”/”plastic bag” “beside the stove” and “a sort of open-fireplace”, etc.
- They hid Azaria’s clothes in another place (and gave the police subtle clues as to where they could find them).

If it was a simple accident (clumsily dropping) I don’t think the parents are bad people. Yes, in that case they made a very bad mistake by covering it up (and lying about it), but I assume it was made in a moment of extreme distress and agony.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

The mentioning of "doors" full stop seems unnecessary language which could speak to the author being a potential victim of sexual abuse in childhood and / or connoted a similar act on someone else in adulthood? "Closed doors," makes "doors" increasingly sensitive. it is generally the "closing" of "doors" which can trigger the memory to the negative events of the past. The closing of the door could indicate a lack of escape, being trapped and the potential start of what was sadly to come. What else could the author have written instead of "closed doors?" I doubt the author themselves realises the significance of what they wrote, yet they chose to include it which makes it important to them.

Hey Jude said...

I am seeing this more, now - the author could have, but didn't write, 'continue behind locked doors' , or "if you lock your church". - but he doesn't say anything about locking the doors, though logically that is what he might anticipate the priest might do. I assumed that was what he meant. That's not what he said, and we shouldn't interpret, or assume. He writes "closed doors", which probably the doors already are during services. A closed door is no protection against someone who has bad intentions. As he doesn't say "locked' there must be some significance to his saying 'closed' , despite it would be ineffectual to merely close the doors against a petrol-bomb or someone who intended to stab people.. it could allude to something which happened in the past - something which is considered 'closed' by the church?

"Continue behind closed doors". - there is no pronoun here. He could be alluding to something in his past, which is unaddressed, while the church continues behind closed doors?

----


OT - Autumn, it wouldn't have been an accident if they did that rather than call for an ambulance. Even when a child is cold and obviously dead, the parent's instinct is to call 911/999.

Hey Jude said...

^ she described how cold/freezing it was when she was changing the baby. - what were they thinking? She mentions a couple who had an eighteen month old baby - maybe an attempt to justify taking her ten week old baby camping in freezing conditions? She might have frozen to death in the car - 'she slept in the car' -that's passive - no mention of who put her there. It is only a thought - I have not read any more yet - but t would be difficult to explain a frozen baby to the medics.

It would be bad, imo, if they wanted everyone to believe for ever that baby Azaria had been carried off and torn apart by a dingo, if they know for a fact that she wasn't.

One of the most unlikely and minimising things which Lindy Chamberlain said was that her baby might need 'first aid' as she'd been seized by her ten week old head, and carried off by that beautiful golden rascal of a dingo - maybe she was going to rummage about in the car for a first aid kit after she'd discovered that she and Michael didn't even have a decent working torch between them.




Hey Jude said...

She can't believe a dingo took and ate her baby because she has such a positive disposition to the dingo?

TimA said...

Since the writer never commits to carrying out the acts described personally, by omitting personal pronouns, it seems possible to me that this is an accomplice. By warning the people the writer may be clearing their conscience of what they know. Has their friend been going on about killing people?

The mention of closed doors might mean that the writer has been abused, maybe by the murderous friend? Although having closed door services has been a response of churches who have been in similar circumstances.

"Straight away" seems British; as does "petrol bomb". Stabbing is much more prevalent in London than in West Midlands, (%210). The majority of stabbings in the UK are by people over 18, (%80).

If the writer is alone in this threat, it is likely there is no intent to follow through with attacks. The writer is someone of British background because of the dialect. Knife attacks and petrol bombs have both been in the news lately in the UK, a petrol bomb was used to kill four children in Manchester. So such threats might be on the writer's mind as shocking.

If the writer is not alone, then it could be that the writer is a gay adult man, in a relationship with an abusive partner originally from London. I'm not an expert...

Peter Hyatt said...

having corrected the post with the complete statement, the analysis changes.

Peter Hyatt said...

Blogger Hey Jude said...
Plus 'congregation' is misspelled as 'congragation' and written smaller than the rest. Is 'congregation' a word more likely to be used by those who belong or have belonged to a church? I think it's a common word which everyone knows and would use to refer to church members at a service.- is that so? Why the choice of 'in' service, rather than 'during a service'?


Asking questions is good!

Re the misspelling ---


Is it masking?

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

The Lunar Landing:

In the interview, the subject was deceptive.

My conclusion is that he was deceptively withholding information on orders, likely from military.

It does not mean he did not go to the moon.

This is no different than anyone (doctors, therapists, cops, lawyers) who deal with confidential information. They are deceptively withholding info, meaning they are thinking about what they cannot say.

Richard is insane.

I am working with him on another project. Maybe another one after that.

Draw conclusions,

Peter

Martina said...

1. The note does not specify who is behind the threat (a foreign faction...?) which makes it less threatening. Why is the person threatening the church members? I don't know. The anonymus writer could have gone for a political context, but chose not to. Why not underscore the threat with something tangible? I say, the writer does not REALLY want to threaten anybody, but is disgruntled with a member of the church, maybe the priest, maybe a frequent attendee, a perceived slight or insult that the concerned person may be aware of, or may not be aware of.
2. The threat to life changes from petrol bombing to stabbing. With open doors it is bombing, with closed doors, more intimate, it is stabbing, the more intimate method of dispatch. The writer puts himself closer to the victim as he goes along. One by one, an afterthought. There could be only one intended victim, this is trying to mask the fact, pretending to target the whole congregation. Service with open or closed doors? Is it a noise complaint?
3. There is no I. The writer is not committed to carrying out the threat, he does not put himself into the action.
3. Spelling mistakes - writer does not like apostrophes. I think it's masking, maybe trying to make it look like sloppiness, the way an older person would think that younger people are sloppy, the way a school teacher thinks sloppiness looks. An older writer, I'm leaning toward female.
4. Targeting several churches and supermarkets? I'm stumped. Maybe distraction from the one target?

Hey Jude said...

Peter, yes, it could be masking - the author doesn't want to be identified. I wonder if making 'congragation' lower case and height is an unconscious diminishing of self as part of the congregation, like a physical shrinking back, not wanting to draw attention to the word, and therefore self. I think Bobcat's point about the lower case 't' occurring in 'stabbed' possibly being due to the author often writing 'St' as in 'St Mary's' is a canny one. A person who wrote it often enough to be habit forming might well be a priest - other candidates might be a secretary, treasurer, magazine, website editor, someone responsible for social media accounts, anyone who runs a church group. I'm thinking more towards the author as a church member now - possibly one who has had a falling out with someone else in the congregation. The number of 'you' and 'yours' against the lack of any first person pronoun makes me wonder if it could be someone who is obsessed with, yet trying to hide his/her interest in the priest.

'One by one' is often how the priest acknowledges the congregation at the church door as they leave - the author wants to stab them. Maybe someone who resents others having any attention from the priest? I'm not convinced the author attends church - maybe someone who has excluded him/herself .

Hey Jude said...

If it was a Father Ted episode, I'd suspect Father Dougal - he'd try anything to not have to go to church.

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

That it lacks commitment -"I" this maybe their baseline. It would've been very interesting if it (I) popped up in a certain sentence or attached to a specific word or event.

...

Hey Jude, hahahaa,

cup of tea, cup of tea, go on go on go on go on

Hey Jude said...

The real giveaway that Richard is insane is the video in which he is chasing sheep round a field whilst waving a massive sheet of plywood,
All Monty Pythonesque. :)

Hey Jude said...

John - do you have any thoughts about Tim's suggestion that the lack of 'I' could be due to the note originating from a friend of the author?
I hadn't considered that.

Chaim Lech Maneuver said...

When I read "He said: 'It looked like just an ordinary handwritten letter...'" I knew Fr Browne had something to do with it. "It was a normal day..."

Anonymous said...

Chaim, that’s interesting. Also: according to the BBC article, father Andrew (Andy) Browne finishes this sentence with “on the outside” ("It looked like just an ordinary handwritten letter on the outside.”). How would he know from the outside that there was a handwritten letter on the inside?

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Below is a transcript of a statement made by the priest to Hallam FM News. A video of (part of) the interview was published in this article.

“I just didn’t know what to think when it came through the door. Shock. Just complete shock and horror. It’s the last thing you’d expect to receive. I just didn’t know what to make of it. I was in disbelief.
A mixture of disbelief and fear. Because you don’t get letters like that every day and you don’t know whether to believe [if it has been] a true letter or is it a hoax. But it brings fear with it because it’s a threat to your life, it’s a threat to your building, it’s a threat to your community. But we will still continue with our services, we will still continue. Because people want to come. And, and it’s brought out a […] resilience that says ‘we’re not going to be beaten down by this”.
There’s such a strong community here in the area and people will not let such hate stop them from living their lives. We just hope we can get to the bottom of this and make sure it doesn’t happen to anyone else.”


NOTE: the 1st and 3rd §§ of the above statement are not in the said video so I copied them from the article. The 2nd § is a transcript I made based on the video. The 2nd § is also transcribed in the article but not entirely accurately (words were added, words were changed). So I guess we cannot be sure that the 1st and 3rd §§ represent entirely accurately what the priest said.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

I’ve looked a bit closer at the priest's statement. These are some of my thoughts (assuming the 1st and 3rd §§ of the statement are grosso modo accurate):

- First sentence is: "I just didn’t know what to think when it came through the door." Why add “when it came through the door”. Why not simply say: I didn’t know what to think? Also: this sentence gives me the impression that he actually saw the letter coming through the door. That would be very coincidental (unless he put it through the door himself). And: why didn’t he know what to think of a letter coming through the door? Don’t letters usually come through the door of that church? Why not just think: Oh, look, it’s a letter, let’s see what it says. Why add “just”?

- The words immediately following the words “came through the door” are “Shock” and “Just complete shock and horror”. Something coming through the door equals shock, complete shock and horror to the priest. Could it be a subconscious reference to a sexual abuse trauma, also given the fact that he says "door" in the 1st sentence (assuming that was indeed the 1st sentence)?

- He then says: “It’s the last thing you’d expect to receive. I just didn’t know what to make of it.” I feel these are in principle logical things to say given the situation but now I also start to wonder: is he (all in all) over-emphasizing his surprise at and lack of knowledge of the letter? Also: "I just didn't know" -> why use past tense? Does he know now what to make of it? Could this be a leak? As in: this is the last letter, it was expected and I made it? And/or is he telling us that he didn't know what to make of something that happened to him in the past?

- Repeated use of “you” and “your”: you don’t get letters like that every day / you don’t know whether to believe (…) / your life / your building / your community. Also: use of the word “continue”. I don't feel this is in itself out of the ordinary, but I note it because these words/repetitions were also used in the letter.

- He says "(...) you don’t know whether to believe [if it has been] a true letter or is it a hoax". So he introduces the possibility of the letter being a hoax. He says this sentence very quickly but I believe he says: it “has been” a true letter. Why use past tense? Does he think it isn’t a true letter (anymore)? Is he telling us between the lines: the letter is about something that was true in the past? He then says: “But it brings fear with it (…)”. I feel by starting this sentence with “But” he diminishes the threat of the letter. As if he says: it’s a hoax but it nevertheless brings fear. Why not say “And” instead of “But”?

- “It’s a threat to your life, it’s a threat to your building, it’s a threat to your community.” Threat, threat, threat. Could the priest be alluding to a different threat (i.e. different from the threats in the letter)?

-“we’re not going to be beaten down by this.” He says “beaten down”. Why these particular words? He could have said “discouraged”, “intimidated”, etc.

-”(...) and people will not let such hate stop them from living their lives.” I would have expected him to say: stop them from “going to church” or “attending church services”. Why does he link “such hate” to stopping them from “living their lives”? Does he let hate stop him from living his life?

- The last sentence is: ”We just hope we can get to the bottom of this and make sure it doesn’t happen to anyone else.” This may be nitpicky but: it already has happened to others. Several churches and supermarkets have received anonymous letters. Could he be unwittingly referring to something else that happened to him but that he doesn’t want to happen to others? Also: why does he say “we can” instead of “the police can”. Does he think he can have a hand in making sure it doesn’t happen to others? Why? How?

Autumn

Anonymous said...

The question also rises: Why is THIS priest the only one who gave an interview (as far as I have been able to find)? And again: Why was the anonymous letter to THIS church published and not the others? I first thought it may have been the police who orchestrated this, but now I'm starting to wonder if this priest actually initiated it (does he want the spotlight on him/his church for some reason?).

Autumn

Anonymous said...

OT: Azaria Chamberlain

Hey Jude, I think you raise some very valid points about this case. Now that I think about it: indeed, if it was just an accident, why the need to cover up? My thought was: not everybody thinks the same and it may have been an irrational decision under extreme circumstances, but you're probably right.

There is at least one independent witness (not also being a family member) that testified she heard a scream coming from the tent just before the mother rushed back to the tent. This witness also testified she had seen the baby alive not too long before that. And the parents informed the other campers I believe about 15 minutes after the scream. They also found a pool of blood in the tent. I still don't think it was a dingo, though. The statement screams cover up i.m.o. Also: how could the mother have seen that the dingo's coat was not dusty at all but not see what was in the animal's mouth? By the way, the mother testified that after it had just happened she told a constable she saw nothing in the dingo's mouth, see here. That would fit neither scenario. It speaks against a dingo taking the baby (unless there was another dingo in the tent prior to that?). It also speaks against the cover-up scenario (if they wanted us to believe that a dingo took the baby, why say its mouth was empty? -> maybe she just had difficulty telling a straight lie?) I've also read the baby's jacket was found around three years later (coincidentally right around the moment when all appeals were exhausted (the mother was tried and convicted for murder)) without any dingo saliva or traces on it. It has also been suggested that one of the sons may have caused Azaria's death. And that they quickly hid the deceased baby in their car (it's what the prosecution stated). Hence "she slept in the car"?

They may have dry-cleaned the blankets before the camping trip because the were travelling through Australia. Still significant that she mentions dry-cleaning blankets right at the beginning of the interview, though.

I will have to look a bit closer at this case and get more informed before I say anything else.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

I also think your comment about "blood on your hands" (i.e.: "In one sense, there is always 'blood' on a priest's hands") is very interesting, Hey Jude. Could the writer be revealing his identity without knowing it?

Autumn

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

“I just didn’t know what to think when it came through the door.

Here we have another reference to a "door" this is the second time it has cropped up, 1st in the alleged threatening letter, now here, this is sensitive.

when it came through the door

this is unnecessary to say (unless he is used to receiving hand delivered mail,) thus making it important. It also slows the pace down.

Shock. Just complete shock and horror.

Dropped pronoun. Is this artificial placement of emotions

It’s the last thing you’d expect to receive. I just didn’t know what to make of it. I was in disbelief.


A mixture of disbelief and fear. Because you don’t get letters like that every day and you don’t know whether to believe [if it has been] a true letter or is it a hoax. But it brings fear with it because it’s a threat to your life, it’s a threat to your building, it’s a threat to your community. But we will still continue with our services, we will still continue. Because people want to come. And, and it’s brought out a […] resilience that says ‘we’re not going to be beaten down by this”.

Note the need to explain. He is anticipating being asked have you had letters like this before.

"You/your"

This is a "threat" to himself (up close and personal it is not universal) and the community.

When time passes , universal, language (2nd person, "you") is appropriate.

When it is fresh, or not universal, distancing language should be looked for possible deception. Given the lack of time that has passed from receiving the letter and this statement, i have my suspicion this is a hoax.

There’s such a strong community here in the area and people will not let such hate stop them from living their lives. We just hope we can get to the bottom of this and make sure it doesn’t happen to anyone else.”

John mcgowan said...

OT:

American singer Chris Brown was released after being detained in Paris over allegations of aggravated rape and drug offenses, judicial sources confirmed to CBS News on Tuesday. The sources said Brown and two others were released from custody, and the public prosecutor will continue investigating the complaints, which Brown denies.

Brown denied the incident in an Instagram post Tuesday afternoon:

"WANNA MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR...... THIS IS FALSE AND A WHOLE LOT OF CAP! NNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEERRRRRR!!!!!! FOR MY DAUGHTER AND MY FAMILY THIS IS SO (DISRESPECTFUL) AND IS AGAINST MY CHARACTER AND MORALS!!!!!"
he wrote on Instagram, alongside a picture that said: "This bitch lyin'."


The arrest was first reported by Closer magazine, which has said a 24-year-old woman claims she was raped at Brown's hotel suite on January 15. Brown has been spotted over the last week in Paris attending events around Paris Fashion Week.

The woman who filed the complaint said she met Brown and his friends at the Le Crystal nightclub and then went back to his room at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, the police source told The Associated Press. One of Brown's bodyguards was among those detained, the source said.

Brown's publicists at Sony Music would not immediately comment.

The American recording artist has a history of violence, including a felony conviction for the 2009 assault on Rihanna, his girlfriend at the time. He completed his probation in that case in 2015.

Brown was arrested in July of 2018 after a concert in Florida on an outstanding warrant for felony battery. The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office confirmed that he was booked on the charge and then released on $2,000 bond.

In 2016, he was arrested at his home north of Los Angeles for an alleged assault with a deadly weapon, after a woman — later identified as former beauty queen Baylee Curran — called 911 from outside the house requesting help. He was released on $250,000 bail.

In 2013, Brown struck a man outside a Washington, D.C., hotel and was charged with misdemeanor assault. The singer was ordered into rehab but was dismissed from the facility for violating its rules. Brown spent 2½ months in custody, with U.S. marshals shuttling him between Los Angeles and the nation's capital for court hearings.

In another incident while in treatment, Brown was accused of throwing a brick at his mother's car following a counseling session. It came after Brown completed court-ordered anger management classes.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-brown-rape-allegations-paris-france-police-confirm-today-2019-01-22/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab5i&linkId=62711584

Hey Jude said...

The priest makes no reference to the author , no concern, no curiosity as to who might be targeting his church..

I agree, that it's in the past tense is unexpected - the threat should be psychologically ongoing as the author has not been identified.

"But it brings fear with it" - this reminds me of Charlie Rogers saying, "There is fear" - generally, the passivity of the language reminds me of the Charlie Rogers interview. She is the gay woman who claimed her house had been invaded by three men who attacked her and carved 'slurs' into her skin, before setting a fire - there were no attakers - she, possibly with an accomplice, caused the injuries and set the fire.

He places threat to his own life first, though a personal threat was not specified in the letter - threat to the building second - his lowest priority is ' the community' despite it was his congregation which was earmarked to be stabbed one by one. He puts the fabric of the church building as a higher priority than the people. Would he do that if he really believed they might be stabbed?

'Such hate' can mean 'hate like this' or 'or this sort of thing' - he doesn't say 'this hate' or 'the hate of whoever wrote this' - I don't think he commits to believing in the existence of a mystery hate filled author.

There aooears no concern regarding who the author of the letter is, for the priest, there is just an 'it' which concerns the content.


tania cadogan said...

John mcgowan said...

That it lacks commitment -"I" this maybe their baseline. It would've been very interesting if it (I) popped up in a certain sentence or attached to a specific word or event.

...

Hey Jude, hahahaa,

cup of tea, cup of tea, go on go on go on go on


This is why we need a like button.

I love Father Ted.

This is near, that is far away.
The raffle and who can forget the milkman hehe
This is one of my must watch tv shows when it is on.

Joe said...

The misspelled word "congragation" is the ONLY word in lower case in the note. So, either the writer is in the congregation, and does not want to draw attention to herself, or the writer has a very low opinion of the congregation. Help me out, here.

If it turns out that the writer is from "one by one" (no. 11) and a neighbor, I will be extremely impressed. Do you do cryptic crosswords, Amber? I mean,Autumn?

Joe said...

Hey Jude at 3:56. Yes. That's what I'm wondering. I should have read all comments befor commenting, myself.

Anonymous said...

Joe, I like cryptic crosswords (and rebus puzzles) but I hardly ever do them. I sort of have abandoned that idea (no. 11, I mean), although I still think it is someone who lives very close to the church.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

The priest is Chair of the Survivor Advisory Panel of the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission. See their website (click on the 2nd name of the dark grey menu at 1/3 of the page).

Autumn

Hamish Spencer said...

So much use of 'your and you'. It doesn't say who will carry out the bombing and stabbing - no 'I will' - perhaps indicating a lack of ability or belief in following through. Weak threat maybe?
'Closed doors' are important to the writer - a possible indicator of sexual abuse in their past, perhaps by a church official or member.
'straight away' rather than 'immediately' or 'right now' - is there something crooked or bent about the church or the note writer?
'Your church will be petrol bombed' is indiscriminate - a wish to see it purged or cleansed with fire with all inside dying. Does the writer see that as preferable to living with the guilt they personally feel over something that happened in there?
Conversely, stabbing is a very personal way to hurt someone that involves penetration - could this be indicative of sexual abuse suffered by the note-writer at the hands of a church member?
'Your congregation members' - makes me want to ask if there is such a thing as 'my congregation members'? - could the note writer be from another church or previously associated with the church and was forced to leave? Leave in disgrace maybe?
'Member' is another word for male genitalia - more sexual abuse imagery?
'You've been warned' - have they been warned before (prior ties with the church) or is this note the warning?
'Stabbed one by one'- is it even possible to stab multiple people at once? More possible hints at sexual abuse buy a church member, perhaps in a private setting.
'Blood on your hands' is missing the future tense 'Blood will be on your hands'. Has the blood on hands situation already happened? Did it happen to the note writer? Tense was use a lot previously in the note, why drop it now?
This is difficult. I'm looking forward to Peter's deciphering.

Hey Jude said...

OT - Azaria

Autumn - likewise, I have been reading up on the case, and listening to some old programmes on YouTube,. I have read Lindy’s statement again too - there is so much narrative building - I find her mostly positive linguistic disposition towards the dingo to be unexpected. Of most next interest, I found the dialogue of the court documents, of which some are here, in case you, or anyone else who is interested, has not seen them:

http://www.famous-trials.com/dingo/462-transcript
http://netk.net.au/Australia/Chamberlain.asp

A thought is that their blankets may have needed dry cleaning because Azaria suffered from projectile vomiting - I learned this about Azaria from Lindy in a (partial) trial transcript. Also that Azaria had ‘the tail-end of a cold’ when they went camping.

I’m curious about why, and why Lindy finds the need to mention, they slept in their ‘other’ tent. The tent from which Azaria apparently went missing looks inadequate for a family of five.

It doesn’t seem like a recipe for a happy holiday to go camping in freezing conditions, in a small flimsy tent with three young children, one a baby who projectile vomits, as if camping weren’t roughing it at the best of times. How was Lindy intending to clean up all the vomit, and vomit covered items, and keep everyone comfortable in those circumstances? Why would you, if you didn’t have to? - each to their own, but that would be miserable, such a basic hygiene nightmare.

I found of interest the tin/can-opener - which location Lindy finds necessary to include, as on top of the can of beans. A witness also stated that she thought Lindy was carrying a can of beans and a can-opener when she went down to the barbecues. I looked for an evidence photo, but can’t find the can-opener or if it was the old knife-style cutter. She took it away from the tent or car, she said to make baked beans for her son, who didn’t get his beans, and who had just had a meal. A thought is that the can opener would not have been in the tent or car when they were examined - it would have been returned to them as ‘dishes’ by the ladies next day. Did he really want beans - was it just an excuse to remove the can-opener? It is a strange detail to include, important enough for her to mention it, yet everyone knows you can’t have baked beans without a can-opener - it only usually become noteworthy if you can’t find it, or don’t have one, and are prevented from opening the tin/can. What was the significance to her of saying the can-opener was on top of the can of beans?

Hey Jude said...

OT. Cont'd


The camp-site witnesses may not have all been reliable - one claimed to have seen and felt a pool of blood in the tent, but the forensics testimony was that there was no pool of blood, only drops, and the tent floor had been covered with blankets and clothing. Frustratingly, it’s only excerpts from the trial, so I don’t know if that was confirmed or contradicted by any other witnesses.

Also interesting, Lindy’s parents were apparently confused, in a phone call from Lindy, to learn that Azaria was a girl, as they had been under the impression that the baby born to Lindy was a boy.

I wonder if their extended family had met Azaria, and how such a major confusion could arise.

The baby in the photos looks older than nine weeks - I had wondered if they were actually old photos of one of the boys as a baby, as Lindy apparently dressed one of the boys as a girl as a baby - the black dress was said to have originally been made for one of the boys. I think, however, it’s reasonable to discount the camping photos being from an earlier time, and accept that Zaria was a big baby and advanced, having found a photo of all three children on that trip:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728499/Father-Azaria-Chamberlain-sells-notorious-yellow-Torana-centre-Australias-infamous-dingos-got-baby-case-national-museum-rego-4ENSIC.html

It puts me somewhat in mind of still missing DeOrr, and his parents’ camping trip.

Michael got ‘4ENSIC’ as number plates for his eventually returned car, which he later sold to a museum - everything is strange about this case.

Anonymous said...

Its tax time. Hows it look out there for the so called big tax cuts? Anyone get a big surprise and OWE more than ever before? Wow!!!!

Buckley said...

Casey Hathaway, missing 3 year old in NC

https://news4sanantonio.com/news/nation-world/exclusive-officials-release-911-call-in-missing-3-year-old-casey-hathaway-disappearance

Officials released the audio to NewsChannel 12 Thursday morning. The audio has been edited to adhere to North Carolina 911 recording laws.
Here is a transcribed version of the phone call:


DISPATCH: Craven County 911. What's your emergency?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER OF 3-YEAR-OLD CASEY HATHAWAY: 200 Toler Road.
DISPATCH: 200 Toler Road?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Yeah.
DISPATCH: OK, and what's going on there?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: We lost my two-year-old grandson. He was walking in the woods back there and we can't find him. 3-year-old grandson.
DISPATCH: OK. Who's been with him?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: His little sister.
DISPATCH: You said a three-year-old?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Yeah, he's three.
DISPATCH: OK.
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: The other ones come through the house but left him there and he walked off somewhere and we can't find him.
DISPATCH: But you're at the house now?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: We're at the house, yeah.
DISPATCH: OK and how long ago do you know has it been that he walked in there?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: It's been at least 45 minutes cause we've been looking all over the woods for him.
DISPATCH: And he's not in the house? Did you look behind the house?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Yeah. No. On the side. Yeah.
DISPATCH: Is he white? Black?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: He's white.
DISPATCH: Do you know what he was wearing?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Probably a black little coat?
DISPATCH: A black coat?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Yeah.
DISPATCH: OK. Does he usually do that?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Huh?
DISPATCH: Does he usually do this?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: No.
DISPATCH: Was he wearing pants?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Yeah, he had pants.
DISPATCH: Were they jeans?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Yeah, i think so.
DISPATCH: OK and you said about 45 minutes ago?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Yeah.
DISPATCH: OK. Alright. Is it a big area of woods behind the house?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Yeah, it's pretty big.
DISPATCH: And you've been out there before looking for him?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Yes. Yeah.
DISPATCH: OK. Alright. We got a deputy headed to you, OK? You said 45 minutes? Directly behind your house or to the side?
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Yeah.
DISPATCH: OK. We do have some deputies headed that way.
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Thank you.

Lucia D said...

There are some concerning things in that 911 call. The Grandmother never actually asked for help for her grandson. She continually used the pronoun we, even though she (from my understanding) was the only adult present, and thus was responsible for supervising these children. She is working hard not to be alone with that responsibility. She never calls her missing grandson by name. She left her 3 year old grandson out in the yard with his “little sister” so a girl of only 1or 2?? And Grandma wasn’t outside with them? I wonder how old the third child is.

I also see subtle blaming of the little sister and other child who “left him there” and even subtle blaming of the victim/missing child. “He walked off somewhere.” Was grandma resentful of being left to care for the little ones?

Anonymous said...

Just posted to fb by the husband his name is Rick Goodman

For those who are not aware, my wife Anna (legal name Melanie) and our 4-month-old daughter Lottie went missing from our church, Old St. Patrick’s Oratory in downtown Kansas City, on Sunday morning sometime during morning mass. The boys are safe and with me, but we are all incredibly heartbroken, miss them so much, and want to know they are safe. At this time, the police seem to feel confident that she wasn’t taken against her will, but none of us understand what caused her to walk away from a great life, with a husband who loves her, and 5 boys that think she hung the moon, nor do we have any idea where she is, but no matter what we all just want her and Lottie to come home.

I have been holding off on posting a lot of information to try to preserve Anna’s privacy and give her a chance to come back without the pressure associated with having this become a spectacle, which I feared would drive her further away. Since they disappeared, I have been in constant contact with the police and other authorities and will continue to do so, but after almost 4 days I think it is prudent to reach out more publicly.

If you are one of Anna’s friends and you know anything about their whereabouts, please reach out to the police right away at (816) 234-5136. Their focus is ensuring that Anna and Lottie are safe, are wherever they are by choice, and are in good physical and emotional health. They will not try to force her to do anything or go anywhere that she doesn’t want to go.

Anna, if you see this, please reach out to the police or one of your many in-real-life friends who love you. You are truly loved by me, your boys, and so many others. We just want to know that you and Lottie are safe.

Anonymous said...

But she said 'my grandson'. That isnt distancing, is it?

Buckley said...

He was found alive!

Anonymous said...

http://www.fox35orlando.com/facebook-instant/missing-nc-3-year-old-casey-hathaway-found-alive

Anonymous said...

I think the writer – prior to sending the anonymous letters – may have received a letter himself. A letter that was delivered through his home door. A letter sent by congregation members of this particular church or by the Catholic Church. A letter containing a warning ((YOUVE BEEN WARNED)). A letter telling him to stop something (the last thing you’d expect) immediately. The writer perceives the letter as a bombshell and as a backstabbing by congregation members. He is angry at the congregation members (hence the word congregation in lower case). The letter frightens and angers him. It makes him regress to a childhood sexual abuse trauma caused by a member of the Catholic Church. Again, he feels that ((a) member(s) of) the Catholic Church attacks/threatens his life. In addition, he is afraid he may lose his home/building and will be shunned by the community. The writer (maybe without even realizing it) retaliates in kind: he decides to send bomb threat letters to Catholic churches and (gossipy?) supermarkets, just like he received a bombshell letter from (members of) the Catholic Church. He threatens to stab the congregation members, just like he feels backstabbed by the congregation members. Just my opinion.

Autumn

General P. Malaise said...

congregation is the only word not in capital letters. it is separating the writer from the congregation. the priest may not consider himself part of the congregation as he is the one leading the congregation.

this letter is shown publicly the others not, did the priest need his own? did he need his own drama? there is no threat and it is passive voice.

Anonymous said...

I think granma saying hes my grandson is not at all suspicious.

Peter Hyatt said...

the General strikes again!

Anonymous said...

OT: Azaria Chamberlain cont.

Indeed, Hey Jude, why take a 9 week-old on such a rough camping trip especially given the vomiting and the cold weather. Apparently they were very outdoorsy. Maybe they were surprised by the cold weather? Interesting what you say about the photo and dresses. I too thought it may have been a different, older baby (but Lindy is bowing down which makes the baby look bigger in comparison).

You are so right about the can opener. I hadn’t realized it, but she wants us to think that the can opener was not in the tent. What role did it play in Azaria’s death? Most of Azaria’s clothes – including a jumpsuit – were discovered soon after her disappearance. I’ve read that no dingo bite marks or saliva were on them. What they did find on the clothes, however, was a bloody print in the shape of a small adult’s hand (later analysts said it was desert sand: what to believe?). Numerous experts claimed that the tears in the baby’s clothing were made by a pair of scissors found in the car. Could the tears have been made by a knife style can-opener?

Lindy was accused of cutting Azaria’s throat in the car with the scissors. I don’t believe she killed her baby on purpose (if so: why do it near a relatively busy camp-site and why warn other campers soon thereafter?). It may have been an accident (“I dived into the tent”, “I dived into the tent”, “drop”, “dropped”, “dropped”, etc.) involving neglect. Had she had alcohol (“they’ll all think I’m drunk”)? I see no mention of alcohol in the trial excerpts, though.

Also the baby had been bleeding quite a lot, as becomes clear from a photo of her jumpsuit. I wonder if a simple fall on the ground (if Azaria indeed fell) would have caused so much blood. She may have fallen on an object. This transcript says they used torches to light the tent while feeding the baby. Could Azaria have fallen on a torch that was lying around? Lindy says “torch” and “torches” 46 times in her statement. It must mean something. She also says they couldn’t find their small torch (without using a pronoun: did they make it disappear?). Why this detail? She also says something flattened the battery of a torch and another one was almost flat. Why these details? Is she revealing that the baby fell on a torch and literally flattened it? See this quote:
”We needed a torch. We'd searched for ours earlier. Couldn't find the little one we were using. We went to get our big one out. We've got one of those Big Jims. Something had been packed on the button and flattened the battery, and the one we had was just about flat. That's why we were looking, because I realized that our torch was useless, …

Autumn

Anonymous said...

OT: Azaria Chamberlain cont.

I wondered the same thing: can the camp-site witnesses be trusted. In the following quote, Lindy doesn’t seem to be too convinced that “the other fellow” heard a baby cry (“sort of indicated”, “heard something”, “whether or not”, “I don’t know”). Also: Lindy says Azaria was “sound asleep”. As in: dead? In any case, Lindy herself doesn’t seem to have heard the cry (“Are you sure?”). Why did she “sort of” pause? All in all, I get the feeling this was a “pre-cooked” play (he said, I said, he said, I said):
"And my husband said to me, "Bubby cried." I sort of paused, and said to him, "Are you sure?" She was sound asleep. He said, well, he heard a cry. And the other fellow sort of indicated that he'd heard something, whether he heard a cry or not I don't know. So I said, "Well, I'd better go and see.""

Weird, indeed, that Lindy’s parents didn’t know Azaria was a girl. Maybe they weren’t very close. Maybe Lindy was a gender neutral parent avant-la-lettre (also given that she dressed her boys in dresses).

Forensic investigators found blood stains in the car. Later analysts concluded the stains came from a spilled drink and a sound-deadening compound that came with the car. What to believe? Everybody seems to think the latter analysis squashed the previous ones. Why? Why would the latter be better?

The 4ENSIC number plate is so strange. I read Michael chose the name with deliberate heavy irony. However, I feel it’s got a “we got away with it”- ring to it. As if Michael was taunting those who didn’t believe the dingo story. It could be a clue. Judging from his facial expressions I don’t believe he was very good at holding the truth in. I also find his following statement interesting:
“The case represents a gross injustice but also freedom of forensic science, which eventually saw Lindy and I exonerated in 1988.
It was one of the worst perversions of justice and forensic science in Australian history. We [the family] had gone as babes in the woods. A Catholic lawyer described us as lambs to the slaughter. The family were grateful to be alive and to share in the freedom of the great Australian outdoors.
We had lived by the credo that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. It was dead wrong.


Autumn

Anonymous said...

OT: Azaria Chamberlain cont.

I think Lindy is able to talk positively about the dingo because her baby wasn’t killed by one (so she has no ill feelings towards dingoes). Interestingly, Azaria’s half-sister is a “pro-dingo activist” who adores, trains and organizes fundraisers for the animals.

In the below quote, Lindy says her head told her it wasn’t possible that the dog had Azaria and her mind wouldn’t accept that Azaria wasn’t there. I think that while saying these things, she thought about the moment she discovered Azaria was dead. THAT’s what her instinct told her, THAT’s wat her head/mind wouldn’t accept:
Instinct told me that she wasn't there, the dog had her, but my head told me it wasn't possible. Dingoes don't do such things, and this was, you know, just beyond the realms of reason. And I dived into the tent just to make sure. I could see from the door that she wasn't there. But my mind wouldn't accept it. And I dived in, actually felt in the cradle for her, to make sure she wasn't there.
INTERPRETATION: “Instinct told me she gone ["wasn't there"=dead]. I told people the dog had her, but that wasn’t possible. And besides, dingoes don’t do such things. What happened was beyond the realms of reason. I dived into the tent [THAT’s why she died]. I could see she was gone but my mind wouldn’t accept it. I dived in the tent. Actually, we fell. I cradled her to make sure she was really gone.”
NOTE: if Lindy wouldn’t accept it was the dingo – even though she was there and saw the dingo – why should we.

In the below quote, Lindy supposedly describes the dingo. She probably didn’t see a dingo coming out of her tent. But she is interviewed by the police so she has to come up with a credible story. Therefore, i.m.o. she spiced (for lack of a better word) the fake dingo story up with details of what actually happened. What actually happened, I think, is that she saw her daughter die. The glowing review of the dingo is in fact a description of her daughter and what she looked like at that moment. What would be the first thing you would think if your 9 week old daughter had died? She is still so young. So young. Still a puppy. What was Azaria wearing? A matinee jacket with two beautiful, shiny buttons(“a coat” “in beautiful condition”, “a shiny coat”), a yellow colored jumpsuit with blood around her neck (“gold” “and “around its neck it was (…) like a rust”). Azaria had her head down. And: did Lindy carry Azaria high at the shoulder?
It was a young dingo, and my first thought was either it was a young one, or still a puppy. It would've been so high at the shoulder. Gold. Its coat was in beautiful condition. It wasn't one of the mangy ones around there. The light was blinking on it, so it must have been a shiny coat, and it wasn't dusty, or anything like that. Around its neck it was, I'd say, like a rust. It put its head down.'

Autumn

Mike Dammann said...

"congregation is the only word not in capital letters."

"continue" isn't in capital letters either

General P. Malaise said...

Mike Dammann said...
"congregation is the only word not in capital letters."

"continue" isn't in capital letters either


yes I must be more careful, thanks. could support a separation/sensitivity regarding the author continuing an action plus "closed doors".

Dave Walton said...

1) "It looked like just an ordinary handwritten letter on the outside.
2) "But when I opened it and read what it said, the horror of what it could entail became clear."

1 = The "normal factor". The subject is telling us that the letter looked normal to him and shows a need to persuade he considered it normal until he "opened" it. Unnecessary information. The subject couldn't have had anything to do with writing the letter (by his account) because he thought it "looked ordinary on the outside" i.e. before he "opened it." It sounds like a subtle form of alibi building. Furthermore: "It looked like JUST an..." "Just" is a dependent word: the subject had considered an alternative thought other than being normal.

2 = The subject did not say: "When I read what it said..." The subject had to open the letter in order to read what it said. Q: Why did the subject have a need to express opening the letter? When someone opens or shuts a door I believe them but question why the need to say so. When someone "left" the office to go to the store I believe them but question why the need to say he left.