unfindable. Something, or somebody, who was unseen, caused excitement in half a dozen towns from Philadelphia to Newark. Even if I could persuade myself that I am over-fanciful in my own notions, the seemingly veritable stories of the existence of a missile-less gun would be interesting. Authorities in Jersey towns, noting the range of the malefactor, were especially watchful of motorists: but it is my notion that he had no need for anything on wheels in which to do his traveling. I noticed a similar range, in the doings in England, in April and May, 1927.
Snipings by the “Camden phantom” were the show-off, and nobody was injured by him: but a more harmful fellow operated in Boston, beginning about Nov. 1, 1930. I think that these sportsmen, who possibly are sentimental opponents to the shooting of game birds and deer, and practice their cruelties in ways that seem to them less condemnable, divide into the unoccult, and into more imaginative fellows who have found out how to practice occultly. In Boston, a noiseless weapon was used, but, this time, in two weeks, two men and a woman were seriously injured, and bullets of small caliber were removed from their wounds. These attacks so alarmed people that policemen, armed with riot guns, lined the roads south of Boston, with orders to catch the “silent sniper.” The attacks continued until about the middle of February, 1931. Nobody was caught.
In this period (Nov. 12, 1931) a dispatch to the newspapers, from Bogota, Colombia, told of a “puzzling crime wave.” In the hospitals were forty-five persons, suffering with stab wounds. “The police were unable to explain what appeared to be a general attack, but they arrested more than 200 persons.”
Another occurrence of “phantom bullets,” in the State of New Jersey, was told of in the New York Herald, Feb. 2, 1916. Mr. and Mrs. Charles F. Repp, of Glassboro, N.J., had been fired upon by “phantom bullets.” This was a special attack upon one house. There were sounds of breaking glass, and bullet holes were found in windowpanes, but nothing beyond the windowpanes was marked. It is such a circumstance as was told of in accounts of the “Camden sniper.” It is as if somebody fired, not only with a missile-less gun, or with invisible bullets, but as if with intent only to perforate windows, and with the effects controlled by, and limited by, his intent. Consequently, instead of thinking of a shooting at windowpanes, I tend simply to think that holes appeared in window glass. Nobody in the house was injured, but Mr. and Mrs. Repp were terrified and they fled. Members of the Township Committee investigated, and they reported that, though no bullets were findable, the windows “were broken much as a window usually is, when a bullet crashes through it.”
That’s the story. Of witnesses, I.C. Soddy and Howard R. Moore were mentioned. I sent letters of enquiry to all persons whose names were given, and received not one reply. There are several ways of explaining. One is that it is probable that persons who have experiences such as those told of in this book, receive so many “crank letters” that they answer none. Dear me—once upon a time, I enjoyed a sense of amusement and superiority toward “cranks.” And now here am I, a “crank,” myself. Like most writers, I have the moralist somewhere in my composition, and here I warn—take care, oh, reader, with whom you are amused, unless you enjoy laughing at yourself.
It seemed to me doubtful that a woman could go along Upper Broadway, and jab, with a hat pin, five men and a woman before being caught. There has been a gathering of suggestions of not ordinary woundings. In Lloyd’s Weekly News (London) Feb. 21, 1909, there was an account of a panic in Berlin. Many women, in the streets of the city, had been stabbed. It was said that the assailant had been seen, and he was described as “a young man, always vanishing.” If he was seen, he is another of the
Snipings by the “Camden phantom” were the show-off, and nobody was injured by him: but a more harmful fellow operated in Boston, beginning about Nov. 1, 1930. I think that these sportsmen, who possibly are sentimental opponents to the shooting of game birds and deer, and practice their cruelties in ways that seem to them less condemnable, divide into the unoccult, and into more imaginative fellows who have found out how to practice occultly. In Boston, a noiseless weapon was used, but, this time, in two weeks, two men and a woman were seriously injured, and bullets of small caliber were removed from their wounds. These attacks so alarmed people that policemen, armed with riot guns, lined the roads south of Boston, with orders to catch the “silent sniper.” The attacks continued until about the middle of February, 1931. Nobody was caught.
In this period (Nov. 12, 1931) a dispatch to the newspapers, from Bogota, Colombia, told of a “puzzling crime wave.” In the hospitals were forty-five persons, suffering with stab wounds. “The police were unable to explain what appeared to be a general attack, but they arrested more than 200 persons.”
Another occurrence of “phantom bullets,” in the State of New Jersey, was told of in the New York Herald, Feb. 2, 1916. Mr. and Mrs. Charles F. Repp, of Glassboro, N.J., had been fired upon by “phantom bullets.” This was a special attack upon one house. There were sounds of breaking glass, and bullet holes were found in windowpanes, but nothing beyond the windowpanes was marked. It is such a circumstance as was told of in accounts of the “Camden sniper.” It is as if somebody fired, not only with a missile-less gun, or with invisible bullets, but as if with intent only to perforate windows, and with the effects controlled by, and limited by, his intent. Consequently, instead of thinking of a shooting at windowpanes, I tend simply to think that holes appeared in window glass. Nobody in the house was injured, but Mr. and Mrs. Repp were terrified and they fled. Members of the Township Committee investigated, and they reported that, though no bullets were findable, the windows “were broken much as a window usually is, when a bullet crashes through it.”
That’s the story. Of witnesses, I.C. Soddy and Howard R. Moore were mentioned. I sent letters of enquiry to all persons whose names were given, and received not one reply. There are several ways of explaining. One is that it is probable that persons who have experiences such as those told of in this book, receive so many “crank letters” that they answer none. Dear me—once upon a time, I enjoyed a sense of amusement and superiority toward “cranks.” And now here am I, a “crank,” myself. Like most writers, I have the moralist somewhere in my composition, and here I warn—take care, oh, reader, with whom you are amused, unless you enjoy laughing at yourself.
It seemed to me doubtful that a woman could go along Upper Broadway, and jab, with a hat pin, five men and a woman before being caught. There has been a gathering of suggestions of not ordinary woundings. In Lloyd’s Weekly News (London) Feb. 21, 1909, there was an account of a panic in Berlin. Many women, in the streets of the city, had been stabbed. It was said that the assailant had been seen, and he was described as “a young man, always vanishing.” If he was seen, he is another of the
Similar Books
