It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Bernardo's Membership Allow Him To Go Undetected?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
I'll bet the Mason's are seeing this, rolling their eyes and saying, "Here we go again."

Yes, Paul Bernardo, He's been discussed many times on this board.

I would just like to state that I DON'T believe that he was commiting crimes at the behest of his lodge, or performing some kind of sick rituals.

What concerns me is the reports that Bernardo was overlooked as a suspect because of his membership in Freemasonry.


At one point Bernardo was on the top of the Police Department's suspect list when he was terrorizing women in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough with his years long rape spree.

Police then strangely dropped him to the bottom of the list, later saying they didn't think he was a 'credible' suspect.

Bernardo then graduated to his grisley mutilation killing rampage.

Did the large Police Officer Masonic Lodge Membership cloud some Detectives judgement about 'Brother' Bernardo's suitability as a suspect? How many Scarborough Police Officers were members of Scarborough Rapist Paul Bernardo's Scarborough Masonic Lodge?

Is Freemasonry the missing piece to the puzzle of how the Police could have failed for so long to stop Bernardo, including the ignoring of repeated tips about him, that has raised so many questions in the public's mind?
Link to Article

Yes, the source stated above is that site beloved by all Freemason's; Freemasonrywatch. For balance I have included a source from Masonicinfo



I grew up and lived in the centre of this storm, as did others in the
Community. That said, I can without any hesitation proclaim that Paul
Bernardo was a Mason. It is unfortunate, yet it is reality. His Lodge
used to come into Kelsey's at Markham and Ellesmere where I worked in
1990-92 for wings and a few wobbly pops.
Link to Article


Paul Bernardo - For some time now we've been trying to get some accurate information about this Masonic membership of this serial rapist from the Toronto, Canada area. Sadly, though, persons in Canada with details about this simply refuse to speak and respond with dismissive comments that we should not, as Masons, speak ill of another member. WHAT?
Link to Article


Just before Christmas, 1987, one of his victim's gave a very specific description of her rapist. He was good looking, about six feet tall, clean-shaven and had no tattoos. Her description and the composite picture she helped develop resulted in the exact likeness of Paul Bernardo. But the police did not publish the photo.

One of Paul's old girlfriends, Jennifer, had gone to the police several times about Paul regarding his brutal rape, physical abuse of her, and his threats to do her bodily harm. There were coincidences which tied Bernardo to the rapes that were going on at that same time: the rapist drove a white Capri and so did Bernardo; Bernardo lived in the vicinity of where the rapes took place. A report was filed, but nothing came of it.
Link to Article


Is it possible that when he was committing rapes early in his career, Masonic police dropped him from high on the suspect list because they could not believe that one of their own would commit such crimes?

Why does Masonicinfo say that even they have had trouble learning of Bernardo's membership?

Was there a possible coverup when certain police who were familiar to Bernardo saw the composite sketch and decided to bury it so as not to bring their fraternity into ill repute?



[edit on 26-10-2006 by Beelzebubba]




posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I've got to be honest this is the first I'm hearing about this but i will keep an open mind to hearing more details.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

The Grand Lodge of Canada in Ontario expelled their Brother Bernardo only long after he was imprisoned, contrary to the many claims of Freemasons.

You will also note the glib tone that these Masons use, and how they never discuss the victims of Brother Bernardo nor whether his Masonic Lodge membership affected the heavily Masonic Toronto P.D.'s investigation.

Link

Reading the posts made by various Freemasons concerning Bernardo on alt. freemasonry I agree that it is interesting to note the lack of compassion and the attempts to refute his membership because "The symbol does not a member make" concerning the ring he was wearing in one photo. I would have thought there would have been serious discussion about the possibility that Bernardo was ignored by police and if this was in any way connected to his Lodge.

In cases like this one I really do believe that Lodges should be forced to reveal their membership lists. Concealing information that is pertinent to an investigation only helps spread suspicion and mistrust. A view shared at masonicinfo.


We feel most emphatically that 'stonewalling' information in such cases serves to not only reinforce a public perception that Masons protect 'their own' but to also create the idea that Masons knew about this and never spoke up.



Sadly, when those who have information choose to 'keep it secret', it only adds to the horrid rumors that such things might be sanctioned by Freemasonry in the cause of 'protecting a Brother'. It also appears that it was only after a guilty verdict that his membership was suspended: sadly we sometimes tend to be glacial in our actions even in light of overwhelming evidence.



We believe that the Bernardo case has much to teach Freemasonry but sadly the one person we know who has many of the details refuses to speak.


masonicinfo



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Well this is conjecture but Bernardo was said to be making snuff films and selling them to satanists and that is why they were protected.

Some have believed that Karla was really in charge but the media made it appear that she was coerced by Paul and was the more innocent one. The public surprisingly isn't buying any of this of course.

If you want to do a search on satanic ritual killing etc and police involvement and I've seen lots of stuff from England and Australia before and how police and the legal system avoid prosecuting these types.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Very interesting thread...


thanks for the links.


In Pace Always
resi



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Reminds me of the time I was watching exhibit A and you could clearly see the Lead Detective's Masonic Ring. I think I mentioned it in another thread how I'm finding out quite a few judges in my local area are Masons and elsewhere. For a time to be on the Supreme Court you pretty well had to be a Mason or no go.

Anyone here ever use Masonry to make a backroom deal with the Judge? I know it goes on.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by soundaddicted
Anyone here ever use Masonry to make a backroom deal with the Judge? I know it goes on.


Yawn...


This is actually a very interesting thread which strikes to the heart of how far friendships and loyalties should be taken, and all you can do is take a cheap pot-shot at an easy target.

How brave and clever you must feel. Why don't you tell us all about the masonic backroom deals you know of and get it off your chest?

That will just leave the item on your shoulder to remove.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
i agree that is a cheap shot. lets try to keep this one thread about facts and not alligations.. i know thats a huge thing to ask around here... but lets try it just this once

Whats more, judges dont make deals, prosecutors do.. and many MANY deals are made between defendants and prosecutors every day, and most of those defendants are not masons.

Further more, many criminals go unnoticed and uncharged due to friendships with police and prosecutors even when masonic membership isnt a factor. As someone who grew up in a small town i have seen first hand how being buddies with the authority figures can afford you a certain level of immunity, i have even benifited from it myself, and i'm not a mason



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman
This is actually a very interesting thread which strikes to the heart of how far friendships and loyalties should be taken...


Thanks Trinityman, I'm glad you find this thread interesting. I thought perhaps this topic had been done to death, hence no interest, hence no responses.

Does this case strike you and other Masons as something that needs to be addressed?

Does the string of Police bungles in this case seem to point to something more sinister?

Is it odd that the Masons of Bernardo's Lodge (or for that matter, the Grand Lodge)would make it so difficult to ascertain whether or not Bernardo was even a Mason?


Sadly, though, persons in Canada with details about this simply refuse to speak and respond with dismissive comments that we should not, as Masons, speak ill of another member.
Link

Even if that Brother is a rapist/murderer?

As we now live in an age (in the western world) where persecution is not such an issue, would it be in the best interests of Freemasonry to release membership lists to the public in the interests of public relations? Especially in cases like Bernardo's?

I have been trying to find out more facts connecting investigators in this case to Bernardo but have had no luck.

Detective Steve Irwin seems to crop up as the main bungler in this case:


Detective Steve Irwin centralized all the physical evidence gathered from the rape victims under one individual, Kim Johnston, in the forensic laboratory. From the semen samples, she was able to determine that the rapist was a non-secretor and his blood type factors, which put him in 12.8 percent of the male population.

Eventually, a number of Paul's acquaintances contacted the police about him and Irwin paid Bernardo a visit. Paul did not strike Irwin as the kind of personality to be a serial rapist, but he took a blood, saliva and hair sample from Paul anyway. The samples, along with 230 samples from other suspects, were handed over to Kim Johnston. Only 5 of the 230 samples fit the blood factors of the attacker. Paul Bernardo was one of those five. His sample was resubmitted for additional testing in April of 1992. By that time, the Scarborough Rapist had mysteriously ended his attacks and the case did not have the urgency and priorities that it had two years earlier when the attacks were in progress.
Link

Would it be possible to learn of Irwins status within Freemasonry, if any?


I would be appreciative to learn the opinions of some of the Masons who frequent this board.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beelzebubba

Originally posted by Trinityman
This is actually a very interesting thread which strikes to the heart of how far friendships and loyalties should be taken...


Thanks Trinityman, I'm glad you find this thread interesting. I thought perhaps this topic had been done to death, hence no interest, hence no responses.

Does this case strike you and other Masons as something that needs to be addressed?

Does the string of Police bungles in this case seem to point to something more sinister?

Hey Beelzebubba

I was really trying to widen this out, as in this context I don't see any difference between a masonic connection between two individuals, and any other form of connection. The question is... how far should we go to protect friends and family, or those we know or feel we have a bond with, when they fall foul of the law to a greater or lesser extent.

I can assure you that if my sister confided in me that she had broken the speed limit on the way to visit me, I wouldn't regard that as worthy of reporting. But if my wife or child was involved in murder it is an entirely different issue.

Freemasons feel a special bond with other masons - we are all part of a fraternity with specific positive goals, and I know that when I meet a man that I judge to be 'good' or 'worthy' I will do whatever I can for that person, whether or not they have helped me personally.

However there are limits, and the ritual is quite specific about this - from Emulation ritual:


that my breast shall be the sacred repository of his secrets when entrusted to my care - murder, treason, felony, and all other offences contrary to the laws of God and the ordinances of the realm being at all times most especially excepted.


From this we can see that the freemason only needs to consider keeping another freemasons secrets when asked. In other words, if he has not been specifically asked to keep something secret he is under no obligation to do so.

Secondly, once taken into another's confidence, there are certain secrets that do not have to be kept. Murder, treason, anything that is against the law, and indeed anything that is against the 'moral'law. In fact a freemason is clearly exhorted to go to the authorities - look at the wording most especially excepted - pretty strong language coming from the 18th Century.

So my masonic opinion is that no freemason need feel under any obligation to protect another who has done wrong. Indeed I would go further, and suggest that they should actively deal with it, not just to protect the good name of the fraternity, but because inaction could lead to this individual harming an another (innocent) freemason.


Is it odd that the Masons of Bernardo's Lodge (or for that matter, the Grand Lodge)would make it so difficult to ascertain whether or not Bernardo was even a Mason?

There could be a number of reasons for this
- poor record keeping
- suspicion of the motive of the asker
- legal (privacy) reasons
- personal stupidity
- ...


As we now live in an age (in the western world) where persecution is not such an issue, would it be in the best interests of Freemasonry to release membership lists to the public in the interests of public relations? Especially in cases like Bernardo's?

I have heard this request before, but it really isn't that simple. If one wishes to frame legislation that requires membership disclosure of private groups, it cannot be discriminatory and so must define its terms of reference. Because freemasonry is not actually in any way a secret society, any attempt to reasonably define the perameters for disclosure would either be so restrictive as to not include freemasonry, or so broad as to include many more groups.

Politically, and morally, it is inappropriate for society in general and the government in particular to know my private activities, and is one more step towards the Big Brother society that so many are afraid of.

As to Grand Lodges releasing lists itself, under current legislation it would need to secure the approval of its membership in order for this to happen. But this is treating the symptom, not the cause. Transparancy of membership of freemasonry will only serve to increase discrimination against freemasons by the bigoted and prejudicial, as we have seen in the UK. It is far better for society in general to understand what freemasonry is and why it is not a threat to them, and this is the direction that many Grand Lodges have taken. Education not capitulation, if you like.


Would it be possible to learn of Irwins status within Freemasonry, if any?

Just to reiterate, freemasonry is a network of private societies that are under no legal obligation to disclose the names of their members. And quite rightly - let me explain...

If Irwin turns out to be a freemason then there are sections of society/the media who will proclaim this as evidence of corruption / nepotism / whatever you want to call it. Without any attempt to learn if there are any more similarities between them, that is enough. Freemasonry is convicted without a trial. What if they went to the same school? Live on the same street? What if they are third or fourth cousins? Attend the same church? Used to be neighbors many years ago? What if they are freemasons but have never met? What if they have met but didn't like each other? Etc etc.

Focusing on the masonic membership issue is counter-productive and irrelevant IMO - it does harm to freemasonry and possibly obscures the truth. If the police need some information to assist in a case they will visit the Grand Lodge and will be assisted in every way possible. Releasing personal information to the sensationalist media and excitable public is not in anyones best interests.


I would be appreciative to learn the opinions of some of the Masons who frequent this board.

Now you know mine.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join