Your link is interesting but I don't think the "Cat Among the Pigeons" Agatha Christie-type serial killer was the same man who killed Chaim,unless the Guam guy can be proven to be in the area at the time?

Oh, I don't think it was the same guy killing at both schools (Mesa would have been a little kid back in 1986 when Chaim was murdered), I just thought it was interesting that there were possible similarities.

Both schools were specialty schools, one a Yeshiva and the other a school for the deaf, rather than the typical high school/college.

In one case it's known for sure that the killer targeted students without roommates, which is suspected in Chaim's case.

Same thing with the murder weapon: the killer is known to have gone back to remove the weapon and evidence in one case and it's possible the same thing happened in Chaim's case.

In the first one, it's known that a fellow student was the killer and it's one of the theories in Chaim's murder.

Both cases had overkill, including one of the deaf school students being repeatedly stabbed beyond what was necessary to kill, which seems to be the same thing that happened with Chaim, once we got past that incorrect report about only one blunt force blow being the cause of death... etc.

Oh, I don't think it was the same guy killing at both schools (Mesa would have been a little kid back in 1986 when Chaim was murdered), I just thought it was interesting that there were possible similarities.

Both schools were specialty schools, one a Yeshiva and the other a school for the deaf, rather than the typical high school/college.

In one case it's known for sure that the killer targeted students without roommates, which is suspected in Chaim's case.

Same thing with the murder weapon: the killer is known to have gone back to remove the weapon and evidence in one case and it's possible the same thing happened in Chaim's case.

In the first one, it's known that a fellow student was the killer and it's one of the theories in Chaim's murder.

Both cases had overkill, including one of the deaf school students being repeatedly stabbed beyond what was necessary to kill, which seems to be the same thing that happened with Chaim, once we got past that incorrect report about only one blunt force blow being the cause of death... etc.
..yes and both killers probable outsiders among the community.

Absolutely.

Broken door in back of the building.

Front had combination lock. Anyone can find out a code. Very easy to bypass in any event. If I remember correctly, though I am not sure...every dorm had the same code.

The building was not secure - that is very clear.

This lack of security and the failure to determine the method of entry has really harmed this case as it still leaves all sorts of possibilities open ......

Regarding your suspect, the janitor, do you know when he returned to Poland ?

I am also curious about about what the lighting was like in the hallway of the dorm n the night of the murder ?

Another issue that I havent seen fully explored is the other 2 murders were the victims had "similar" injuries to Chaim . When did these murders occur? Was this in the same neighborhood as the school ? Were the 2 murders ever solved ?

Suspect: no, I do not. All I know is that he had a fierce temper and was prone to violence. I assume he quickly disappeared after he was investigated. As I have found out now, he was an American citizen. I wonder why he decided to move back to Poland.....

Yes, there were two stabbing deaths. The victims were elderly gentiles. I do not know anything about this.

I found an interesting presentation about the Chaim Weiss murder:

http://prezi.com/uvtli01hexxy/untitled-prezi/

Interesting presentation !

Was that the picture of the actual janitor in the presentation ?

That presentation certainly addresses the motive for the crime and why Chaim . What amazes me is why he wasnt THOROUGHLY investigated given the circumstamces of his depature . The janitor fits someone with the means and motive ......



Another interesting thing is the hair that was supposedly recovered , I wonder if it has been analysed , it could be a key piece of evidence ....

Is that the actual janitor?

Pardon me but what picture are you all talking about? I went to the link I do not see one?

Pardon me but what picture are you all talking about? I went to the link I do not see one?

Jen , click on the link to the presentation and when you get to the presentation move your mouse to the right edge of the presentation and you will see icons for zooming in and out. click on the icon to zoom out and you will see the whole presentation. Now follow the footsteps and you will see a picture of an old man with greying hair and a grey moustache at the end of the footsteps ....then zoom in to get a better view ........

I do get the full article on Heim though. I clicked on a college on the right side and . get message saying the prezi page is missing a plug in. oh well. I hate glitches.

A Jewish weekly magazine has an in depth article regarding the murder in this week’s issue. Last night I skimmed through the article and now I'll mention a few things that to my knowledge weren't mentioned here.

It has been stated many times before that the secular date was the night of October 31 - November 1 1986; I never bothered to look up the Hebrew date. The Hebrew date was 29 Tishrei, 6 days after Simchas Torah. Most Yeshivas have vacation from the day after Yom Kippur (Yom Kippur is on the 10th of Tishrei) until a few days after Simchas Torah. Chaim was probably back in Yeshiva for only two or three days before he was murdered.

The article mentions that one theory that was floating around back then was that a homeless person moved into the dorm for those two weeks and was furious when the students came back.

Going on the assumption that it was someone from outside the Yeshiva- this two week vacation would have given the murderer ample time to scout out the whole dorm in order to plan the murder. One of the people interviewed for the article was a ten year old boy at the time who lived directly behind the dorm and frequently hung around the dorm. He said that despite the amount of time he spent in the dorm (he was also friends with Chaim) and despite him and his family being so close to the scene of the murder while it took place- they were never interviewed by the police. He claims that the police always thought it was an inside job and never considered that it may have been an outsider.

This was also reflected in the interviews with former students. They do stress that the faculty told them to fully cooperate with the police and many parents even gave permission for their kids to be polygraphed without an adult present. One of the kids interviewed related how he came in and the detectives started by saying, "We know it was you, tell us how you did it". With detectives acting like that, I can understand why kids would be intimidated to say anything (like giving over possible information) that may prolong the length of the interview. They are hopeful that some of those kids -now they are adults- will come forward with information that they may have withheld back then.

There seems to have been a disagreement here about when the candle was left. The article stresses that it wasn't left at the time of the murder but during the week after. The author seems to think the detectives were barking up the wrong tree by spending so much time on the 1) Open window, 2) body being moved 45 minutes after the murder and 3) candle being left by some unknown person. He thinks that there was nothing symbolic about the first two, just the way the murderer happened to do it.

There was no mention of the boy seen on the boardwalk and it's quite possible that the boy (assuming that there was one there) doesn't even know that he was being sought after if local families weren't questioned.

I don't recall there being any mention of the door that was opened in another room.

(I have spoken to many people who were there at the time and no one ever mentioned anything about the boy on the boardwalk. I only found out about it when I saw the Unsolved Mysteries episode on YouTube in 2010.)

When I was in high school I had a dorm counselor who was in Yeshiva with Chaim. I think that they may have been classmates (this dorm counselor was born in 1971) but I can't say for sure. He has a photographic memory for the smallest details about everything so hopefully he'll be able to help. We used to ask him questions about the incident all the time but he refused to discuss it (saying he repeated it too many times). He did once call over one kid and tell him everything that he knew (so we can bother this kid instead) but this kid wasn't good with details and when we asked him questions later on he wasn't able to tell us anything we didn't already know.

It's probably not worth mentioning this since I don't believe it but... While we were discussing it once we were wondering why the investigators were spending so much time on a seemingly insignificant detail about a door being opened in middle of the night. Keep in mind that Yeshiva guys are normally closer to their classmates then they are to their brothers since they are in small classes and around the same small group of kids all day 10+ months per year. It was normal for one kid to go into another room in middle of the night on a Friday night to get something to eat or drink or to just look for some reading material. (Keep in mind that on a Friday night we weren't able to use the soda / vending machines if we got hungry or thirsty.) One kid said that it was his brother-in-law who got woken up when his door was opened and the reason why he thought it was the murderer is because the person was wearing a mask. Again- I do not believe this person.

I also believe it is nonsense - the whole mysterious boy on the boardwalk. It means very little as all the boys and people in Long Beach at some point visit the boardwalk.

I absolutely believe there was a yeshiva student there (either that yeshiva or another one). Of course, I also believe there was absolutely no connection to this case. Teenage boys go for walks. Teenage boys stare into the ocean. Teenage boys who can't use electricity (because it was Sabbath) and wake up super early may go for a walk so that they aren't tempted to break Sabbath. I think whoever that boy was, he was pondering one of life's important mysteries, and not the murder of a student. And by one of life's mysteries, I mean things like "Oh crud, I think I'm getting a C in Chemistry, my mom's not going to be happy!" or "I wonder if Rachel likes me." or "I wonder if I can hide my shawl fringes so I don't look so dorky walking to the bodega." Normal, typical, teen angst.

THE JEWISH RELIGION WOULD NEVER ALLOW A JEW TO KILL FOR ANYTHING - even if someone felt wronged.



Is this the reason why Orthodox religious Jews are exempt from military service in Israel ?

The religion has nothing to do with this murder is my point.

Agreed in full.

It was a murder that happened to take place in a yeshiva. Period. I think the police overinflated virtually everything in that regard.

Again, even if "An eye for an eye" WAS a belief used to justify murder, we would have to accept that young Chaim had himself MURDERED someone for this to be just. But they don't, so it's moot.

This reminds me of The Onion article were G-d comes to earth and says "What part of "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" are you people not understanding?"

Could they put the dna they found into a computer and find a match?

From what I read, there was a hair sample, dna material, and other items the detectives declined to discuss.

They have the evidence, but not a solid suspect.

I know this is a puzzling mystery, but the killer was some bumbling, erratic individual who did not commit the perfect crime.

There is evidence and I hope someone will be caught soon.
That's hardly likely if the main suspect is six feet under in a Wroclaw cemetery.They could possibly obtain DNA samples from any living relatives and match it to the strand of hair we are now told Police possess from the crime scene.

I have been thinking quite deeply about the one student who saw/heard someone lurking in the hallway and quickly peaked in the room and shut the door.

Like I said, these boys would have been informal with one another and I am convinced that that was the killer who did not want to be seen. If it were just some student walking through he would have left the door open and not even cared. Yeshiva students who live together quickly bond and become a family.

That was the killer.

My second point would be that the killer was either looking for Chaim or a room where only one student slept.

The fact that he clearly did not know where Chaim or one student slept, which is indicated by his lurking and shutting the door, in my opinion exonerates every individual on that floor --- if not all the students and administrators in that building.

If the killer were someone who was in that dormitory, he would not have confused which door he opened. He would have 100% known where Chaim/the student with his own room slept.

When you are studying with someone and live with someone in a yeshiva - you know where they sit in class, where they sit/stand when praying in the synagogue, and so forth. You know these things.

The fact that the killer confused the rooms and did not know exactly where he was going in my opinion exonerates everyone in that dormitory. I am convinced that no one from Chaim's class or even the other students/administrators who would have known where he was because they lived in that dorm committed the crime. They would have known where to go.

The killer did not live in that dormitory.

RebZissel-

I agree that yeshiva guys are very close to each other- usually they are closer to their friends than to their brothers- and know everything about everyone.

But I respectfully disagree with the rest of your post.

As a person who spent over a decade in different yeshiva dorms I can testify that it would be totally normal to walk into someone else's room in middle of the night to borrow (or take) something, but if everyone in the room was sleeping I would try to close the door very quickly and quietly in order not to disturb anyone.

Another possibility is that the person who opened the door was a student who had a little too much to drink. There was no curfew on Friday nights, the Rabbis were nowhere to be found and morning services where later on Saturday morning than the rest of the week- a perfect time for those who felt the need to get drunk.

In 12th grade I slept in the room next to the bathroom and my roommates and I used to stay up to the early hours of Saturday morning talking. On numerous occasions a drunk kid would stumble into our room thinking it was the bathroom. We used to look at each other and laugh- and most times the guy had no idea what we were talking about when we mentioned it in the morning.

One more thing from that article that I read over the weekend-

There was a picture of the dormitory showing mainly the front of the building but also the right side of the building. The caption on the photo said that the door on the right side of the building led right up to the room that Chaim slept in. I assumed that the room that Chaim was in had the window that was directly on top of the door (I may be wrong though). There was no window directly below that window on the second floor.

The article said that the door on the second floor may have been locked that night (I'm not sure if that meant the door to the hallway on the second floor or to the room itself that was directly below Chaim's room).

None of the dorm rooms that I lived in during my Yeshiva years had locks on the doors that were used. When I stayed in Long Beach for a weekend shortly after the murder I do recall there being a lock on the door to get into the building but not locks on individual floors or rooms.

Avi, if you find that article online, please post the link. Sounds interesting.

Yes, but that night there was a murder in the room next to the one where the door was opened and quickly shut. I am fairly convinced that that was the killer and he did not want to be seen.

Even if he were drunk, he would have made eye contact with the students inside, but this individual did not want to be seen. Someone was lurking in the hallway.

Someone was up to no good.

The magazine is called "Ami Magazine", I'm not sure if it is available in your area.

I agree that there was a murder in a nearby room- that's not being disputed- I respectfully disagree with you regarding if there is any significance in a door being opened in middle of the night.

Let's assume for a minute that it was indeed the murderer- which part of this persons actions show that they did not want to be seen?

Was the door closed very quietly? If so, this was a common occurrence when a fellow student is looking to "borrow" something in middle of the night.

Did person leave quickly and let the door slam? If so, this was also a common, but not as common occurrence when a kid who was still under the influence would accidentally walk into the wrong room. There was no reason to make eye contact to verify that it wasn't the bathroom.

The times I got woken up in middle of the night when someone entered my room- it took a few seconds to realize what was going on and to focus on the person to see if I recognize them or not. There were many times that I got woken up from the door to my room closing, by the time I figured out what had happened the person was long gone.

In either case my assumption is (and I may be wrong) that the murderer was not the one who opened the door in the other room.

Just out of curiosity, what was your Yeshiva/ dorm background?

Reb,
No one here is saying it was anything but murder. In fact, we're all vehemently agreeing with you.

I thought the janitor did it.

Can someone explain to me why there is some confusion to who found the body. Surely the police could have decided that by now. This case is now being reopened and we hope that something will come out of it. Thank you for this forum since all the main Jewish orthodox newspapers and websites talking about it miss any facts which are detrimental to Jewish people like the father took the school to court for 15 million damages which he later withdrew.

I must also mention being Jewish there are some mistakes here regarding Jewish law. First of all a slain person has to have all his blood buried with him even if the blood is on his clothes or even on the floor. This has to be taken up and buried. As already mentioned it is unlikely a boy and even most adults are unaware of the window opening custom. It is more likely it was 'too' hot for him. I dont know why everyone thinks its more likely a boy than one of the school Jewish adult staff who were on the premises. There were also non-Jewish staff on the premises or who worked in the school. This is of course a 'chilling thriller' but like most, the answer is usually very simple once you know it. I must also say that in Jewish law a murderer is killed. Even if there are no witnesses as long as one can be sure he is not let off. This may be the reason why the school authorities even if they know or have a pretty good idea are not being too helpful to the police in case they find it to be a Jewish person. One thing now being mentioned is that there was some 'discord' among the staff. One wonders if this boy who appears to have been very bright took the side of one of them and got the others to follow him. This is all conjecture and the idea that it cant be a Jewish person goes against the bible who says that in such a case one has to bring a calf and chop his head off and the blood will run to the murderer. I doubt if thats been tried yet.

There is another aspect to this. Josephs brothers tried to kill him thinking it was a 'mitsva' or positive command to do it and that he deserved death but they didnt get 'round' to it. Even if a person receives death in the Jewish religion his body still has to be treated with respect and must not be left overnight. Maybe here was something similar. Someone believed he deserved to die and that is why he even killed on the shabbos (which is not done in the Jewish religion even for 'deserving' cases) but afterwards made sure the body was correctly 'treated'.

from a previous post of RebZissel.
5) There was no homosexual behavior in the yeshiva. Don't you think that in the age of invasive journalism the public would have found out? Homosexuality among Orthodox Jewish boys would have been noticed and reported immediately among close-knit yeshiva students. We would have found out about it, but it didn't happen. There are no secrets among a small class of students. There is no credible evidence to suggest such a thing. Well the police have so far found out nothing and they have managed to be very tight lipped I dont think journalist could do better.

I would like to remind him although having no idea of this yeshiva, that many yeshivas (jewish schools) often have unexplained fires. In Jewish holy books this is given as the reason. They do not interact with girls and have no girl friends so this is not as uncommon as he would like to have us believe. Certainly fires are very common and often their holy scrolls as well. It is like God telling us he prefers that such 'boys' should rather not be learning them.

Again from RebZissel
8) There was also a crackpot theory that Chaim was killed as a result of siding with one dean over another. From my experiences in a yeshiva, that is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Young boys DO NOT get involved in the staff politics of older rabbis. That is so preposterous. Among Orthodox Jews age is an important issue. A rabbi of 70 would not be told what to do by a 15 year old boy. His opinion would not be sought. Yeshiva students are intentionally kept in the dark of the politics among staff members. Rabbis feel that it is simply not the role of young, immature students to dictate what rabbis ranging from middle age to their elder years should do.'''''''


I have also been reading his numerous posts which all try to make the Jewish people especially the boys whiter than white. I suppose he doesnt like the fact that I being a Jewish person am destroying them all.
I would like to remind him that someone has been murdered. In such cases one has to stick to the truth which I am sure RebZissel know as well as I do. Just because this is a non-Jewish site makes no difference. I suppose it is only because of people like him who make sure that the truth about yeshivas never come out that the murderer has not been found. I suppose the logic is that the boy is dead anyway and no further harm can come to him so why say bad things about the school which can still harm them.



I am sorry to tell you that this is not the practice in most yeshivas. In all of them the students take a distinct roll in every argument and the staff encourage them if they are on their side. One reason is that they almost always have to get their parents on their side who usually decide these things in the end. Yeshiva get their money from the community meaning the parents. They dont have huge bank accounts with accumulated wealth to rely on. It is usually a hand to mouth existence and the students opinion is taken very seriously.

Also that a Jewish 'professor' or rosh yeshiva would light a candle on the shabbos even absentmindedly beggars belief. Death is not a common thing and when one suddenly 'meets' it one doesnt suddenly rush out for the candle. I would also like to know where this 'special' candle came from. It is used specifically for 'dead' people or for alive ones to remember them yearly by. How did it land up in his room and from where did it come. How is it no finger prints were found on it. If it wasnt lit by the murderer he would have left some. I cant believe yet that a murderer even if he was Jewish goes around with such candles. A school has no need of them since most boys do have parents. And those boys that dont would have their own and not expect the school to supply them.
There seems a very lot of unanswered questions so far which if answered would have solved this crime long ago.

Unfortunately, this message board has been infiltrated by someone who decided to create some drama. Reading the previous posts I am fully convinced that Reb Chaim is not Jewish and is only here to create drama.
So that is the best answer you can give to my post. I still thank you for it.
Calling me names like troll etc. will not find the killer. I believe like I have written that you and the yeshiva staff have reasons which I stated ( between the lines) for this to be.
Why in a murder inquiry should the police say that the yeshiva are not being 'helpful'. I call that a 'chillul hashem'. A profanation of G-d's name and everything Jewish.
You know very well I am Jewish. I Would think your not Jewish or have very little knowledge of the Torah or bible. How is it you dont know that Josephs brothers tried to kill him.
Otherwise I wouldnt be able to tell you the truth. Just saying I am not which therefore translates that what all I say untrue wont wash. Perhaps you can explain why so many yeshivas have fires. Yes acts of G-d thats right and in case you didnt know why till now, now you know. I have been reading more about this yeshiva. It doesnt sound like a 'real' one at all. Is that what Jewish boys do friday night playing board games all night or larking about. Remember you are on a non Jewish site here. The non Jewish people will decide between us who is right and just calling me names wont sway them to your side.
I repeat this is a murder inquiry. Having read more about it I have come to my own further conclusion. It could be fantasy but I think makes more sense than yours. Someone could even be Jewish had some arguement with the father and arranged a 'contract' killing but stipulated that the body should be 'respected'.
I would like to ask is it that easy for a non professional or a boy to hide finger prints?
I, and all the other viewers are awaiting some serious answers from you.
I read now from the detective that the candle was lit after two days in a sealed room and not on shabbos. How does one get into a sealed room. Very mysterious.

I read now from the detective that the candle was lit after two days in a sealed room and not on shabbos. How does one get into a sealed room. Very mysterious.

Respectfully snipped:

The room being "sealed" probably means either it was blocked with police tape or there was an official sticker stuck to the door and doorjamb so they'd know if someone opened it. Pretty easy to circumvent either way.

So that is the best answer you can give to my post. I still thank you for it.
Calling me names like troll etc. will not find the killer. I believe like I have written that you and the yeshiva staff have reasons which I stated ( between the lines) for this to be.
Why in a murder inquiry should the police say that the yeshiva are not being 'helpful'. I call that a 'chillul hashem'. A profanation of G-d's name and everything Jewish.
You know very well I am Jewish. I Would think your not Jewish or have very little knowledge of the Torah or bible. How is it you dont know that Josephs brothers tried to kill him.
Otherwise I wouldnt be able to tell you the truth. Just saying I am not which therefore translates that what all I say untrue wont wash. Perhaps you can explain why so many yeshivas have fires. Yes acts of G-d thats right and in case you didnt know why till now, now you know. I have been reading more about this yeshiva. It doesnt sound like a 'real' one at all. Is that what Jewish boys do friday night playing board games all night or larking about. Remember you are on a non Jewish site here. The non Jewish people will decide between us who is right and just calling me names wont sway them to your side.
I repeat this is a murder inquiry. Having read more about it I have come to my own further conclusion. It could be fantasy but I think makes more sense than yours. Someone could even be Jewish had some arguement with the father and arranged a 'contract' killing but stipulated that the body should be 'respected'.
I would like to ask is it that easy for a non professional or a boy to hide finger prints?
I, and all the other viewers are awaiting some serious answers from you.
I read now from the detective that the candle was lit after two days in a sealed room and not on shabbos. How does one get into a sealed room. Very mysterious.


Reb Chaim,

I'm going to try to answer all your questions- keep in mind that I am not a spokesman for the yeshiva. If you have more- feel free to reply.

From all the people I spoke with who were there at the time- they all said that they fully cooperated with the police. In an article I read last week concerning the murder there were some students interviewed (although they weren't named) and they said the same thing. The author of the article wasn't able to find any of the detectives who were willing to be interviewed. I'm curious to know why they say they were having a "cooperation" issue.

A few theories I have is that either- 1) since it was Shabbos the kids may have refused to sign anything (or be hooked up to a polygraph) until the next day, 2) One person told me that the Yeshiva sent everyone home for a few days, perhaps the detectives thought that this was to hinder the investigation, 3) My friends and I all think that the kid seen by the boardwalk had nothing to do with the murder, maybe the detectives felt it was significant and got frustrated that no one else felt it was worth looking into. Again, these are just my theories. If a detective is willing to be interviewed with some of the students he claims weren't cooperating we may get a clearer picture.

This Yeshiva is very real and considered prestigious, the top kids in my class went there. High School Yeshiva boys are... teenagers, just like any other teenage boys. And yes, that is what Yeshiva boys do on Friday Nights, it is the one day a week that there is no curfew and they don't have to wake up as early the next morning. I don't see anything wrong with that.

You wanted to know why many Yeshivas had fires- the handful of fires that I do know about were in dorms that were built as houses (out of wood) and were not meant to house that many students. The last dorm I was in was built out of cinder block and had an updated sprinkler system. The few fires that broke out (albeit very rarely) were extinguished very quickly. They could have been very devastating though if it were a wooden house.

Your final question was how does one get into a sealed room? The article I read answered this question. One of the rabbis went into the room (with permission) to clean up- keep in mind that all body parts and blood that leaves the body at the time of the murder have to be buried. Blood has to be scraped off the wall and all bedding and clothing with stains have to be buried. Surely whoever did the clean up job was wearing gloves.

The theory going around the yeshiva at the time was that the rabbi (who happened to be absent minded) totally forgot that he lit the candle as the cleanup job must have been emotionally straining. He was probably already wearing his gloves when he opened the plastic around the candle so there wouldn't be any fingerprints on it.

Does anyone think that the actual murderer snuck back in two days later to light a candle?

Thanks for your reply. I have also read the AMI articles, that is how I found out about this story and came to this site. Your 'cleanup' rabbi theory for the candle doesnt hold 'water'. This wouldnt be an elderly absent minded rabbi's job to cleanup, but the burial society members. Even then we havent been told when the body was buried after the post mortem. And this type of candle is not a normal yeshiva household item or a rabbi's 'pocket' one, so why no examination where it came from.
'Handful' of fires! it seems you dont read the Jewish newspapers, name me a yeshiva that hasnt had one. Just google yeshiva fire and see how many come up.
There was a distinct lack of cooperation with the police. It seems the police also cant put their finger on it. Why should lie detectors be needed. Why cant the boys tell the truth without one. I have given my own reason earlier. Again your reasons are all rather hollow.
This not being a Jewish site I wont labor the point of what they ought to be doing friday night.
I thank you again for your reply. Perhaps Reb Zissel misunderstood me. His point all the time was that it couldnt be a Jewish person doing this. My response is that in a murder enquiry one doesnt have such preconceived notions however admirable. Everyone is suspect until the real one is found and its a shame and disgrace that this yeshiva does not cooperate fully with the police.

Thanks for your reply. I have also read the AMI articles, that is how I found out about this story and came to this site. Your 'cleanup' rabbi theory for the candle doesnt hold 'water'. This wouldnt be an elderly absent minded rabbi's job to cleanup, but the burial society members. Even then we havent been told when the body was buried after the post mortem. And this type of candle is not a normal yeshiva household item or a rabbi's 'pocket' one, so why no examination where it came from.
'Handful' of fires! it seems you dont read the Jewish newspapers, name me a yeshiva that hasnt had one. Just google yeshiva fire and see how many come up.
There was a distinct lack of cooperation with the police. It seems the police also cant put their finger on it. Why should lie detectors be needed. Why cant the boys tell the truth without one. I have given my own reason earlier. Again your reasons are all rather hollow.
This not being a Jewish site I wont labor the point of what they ought to be doing friday night.
I thank you again for your reply. Perhaps Reb Zissel misunderstood me. His point all the time was that it couldnt be a Jewish person doing this. My response is that in a murder enquiry one doesnt have such preconceived notions however admirable. Everyone is suspect until the real one is found and its a shame and disgrace that this yeshiva does not cooperate fully with the police.

Why would it have to be a member of the burial society? If someone else knows how to do it why can't they do it? When a fellow yeshiva student was killed in a car accident one of the rabbis personally went to the lot where the cops had the car towed and removed all items that had to be buried. I think in the article it did specifically say that it was a rabbi who cleaned the room. If he knew he was going in he might have purchased the appropriate type of candle beforehand.

I agree that this type of candle is not a normal yeshiva (or household) item but it is readily available in many stores, including some non-Jewish stores. If this is the first time that the rabbi saw anything as horific as this- and he was known to be absent minded- then it's possible that a detail like that slipped his mind. This was a few days later so it's very unlikely that it had anything to do with the actual murder.

Doing a Google search it seems as if his funeral was on Sunday, November 2.

I still say I only know of a handful of fires that burned down an Orthodox yeshiva building (one had fatalities). If you know of more feel free to mention them. You are correct though that I don't read Jewish newspapers on a regular basis. A Google search of "yeshiva fire" was inconclusive.

The people I spoke with said that there was full cooperation with the police and I haven't heard anything specific about why the police say otherwise (and none were interviewed in the article). In the article it mentions that the detectives were intimidating, maybe they felt that they weren't getting the truth so they brought in the lie detectors. From what I understand everyone that took the polygraph passed (and I don't know of anyone that was caught lying). As far as I'm concerned it looks like everyone told the truth with and without the polygraph.

What was the reason that you mentioned earlier? I agree that my reasons weren't too good but without hearing anything from the detectives I had to grasp at straws.

Regardless of what they should be doing on Friday nights, these are teenagers and teenagers don't always do what they should be doing. (I have no idea what you are referring to that "what they ought to be doing friday night" so feel free to send me a PM if you don't want to post it.)

Until the murderer is caught I think it would be foolish to say it couldn't be a Jewish person, a student... We are obviously dealing with a very disturbed individual.

Ok thanks for your posts. We may still be able to get to the bottom of it.
First of all I didnt say fires with fatalities. Do your search again and you will find many yeshiva fires. I must mention I do know of a few with fatalities.
I am sure the practice is for a member of the burial society to do it or to supervise it. If he would have purchased it specially or had it in his pocket he would remember lighting it or leaving it there. I still think this aspect should have been investigated.
So here are some questions.
What are yeshiva boys doing on Halloween on a friday night in the streets. Looking or asking for trouble.
Why has no reward been issued till now. The family seems to be able to afford it. Why the reluctance for the father to be interviewed. Why has no member of the yeshiva ever been interviewed. I understand someone there has just passed away is it coincidence that this case has now been reopened. What were the boys last movements on Friday night. Did he also go out 'on' the town. Who was the last to see him and what was he doing then. Why such a confusion of who found him dead in the morning a boy or an adult. Why hide such an important fact. What exactly was the murder weapon or was there more than one. Was it a normal kitchen knife which a boy could have found or something more sinister. The story sounds that more than one person was involved at least after the death, are we sure that only one person was. What exactly went on with the body how often was it moved and where exactly to. It would be very difficult for a boy or even a member of staff to 'clean' his clothing or do away with it on the shabbos if it was blood spattered. Do we know if this was likely. How much blood was all over the room and if there was, something must have got to the murderers or his accomplices shoes which would show when he went away on the floor. This sounds like the perfect crime which leaves absolutely no traces, I just cant believe it. The body was moved so the person moving it must have left some traces. Is it normal for the yeshiva to open so early after the holidays.
Now we come to the yeshiva staff dispute. Why the secrecy of what it was about after so many years. Just saying it is not relevant isnt good enough. I am sure if the boys knew about it and we havent been told they hadnt they would have taken sides. It could very well have been about this boy. Why exactly did he have the only single room. Was it an 'honor' or for some other reason. Was it by any chance to keep him away from others.
What I can gather from all this, is that the yeshiva and the father have something to hide even after so many years and the answer lies between them somewhere. Just 'throwing' it now on a dead polish worker which it seems is what they are trying to do, hoping someone will somehow claim the reward and then we will be able to forget about it isnt good enough.
It may not be right to talk 'ill' of the dead, but we have to find closure.
I may add the detective leading the case interviewed in the AMI magazine which has very many pages covering this story almost the whole magazine insists it was an 'inside' job and believes in his words 'Something isnt quite right'. He also states that he wasnt aware till now that a Jewish person is reluctant to 'tell' on another one even in a murder inquiry. That is something I dont understand for a detective on the case not knowing that. 'Isnt quite right' is an understatement there is something decidedly wrong here. I of course dont know all the facts but I would be very surprised if there are any which precluded cooperating with the police.

Did this somehow just dissolve into a "I'm more Jewish than you are" argument? I can settle this. You are both more Jewish than I am.

Can we get back to Chaim now?

Did this somehow just dissolve into a "I'm more Jewish than you are" argument? I can settle this. You are both more Jewish than I am.

Can we get back to Chaim now?

Yes, thank you! :clap:

On another site frequented by posters here, a student called LBG from the yeshiva says they believe there, that it has to do with the father like I wrote.

The father at the press conference asked the boys who are now parents to come forward although he is not prepared to be interviewed himself. This means he also believes they are hiding something. This student also says a student found him whereas AMI says a counselor found him. This was my first question here who exactly found him.


The AMI quoting the detective says a hair from the killer was found but cant be tested since this would destroy it. Not much point in having it then. Also how can they be sure its the killer's hair and why dont they tell us how long and what color it is and is it from the head or beard. Do killers really leave or shed hair at their victims body.


The AMI says that they went to pray 'shachris' morning prayers and before the end it was surrounded by police. How can one pray, straight after such a grisly murder. Reminds me of the story in the talmud, of a boy being stabbed in the temple when they said take him out and carry on with the 'service'. The talmud concludes because murder was cheap then.


Back to the candle. There was already a candle burning in the room and no real need for a second one, put there two days afterwards. I dont believe anyone would go to collect 'blood' from a sealed room without police permission. More likely he went to retrieve or change some object perhaps a hebrew book or magazine which the police didnt afterwards notice. Why he put a second candle, some people perhaps do that, but its not the custom unless its a relation.


The moving of the body at least 45 minutes after the murder is really whats relevant and the most intriguing part of the case. That the killer stayed there or came back to retrieve something and then pushed him of the bed does not sound plausible at all. I suppose that the forensic cannot be mistaken, The police couldnt have moved it when they came since the one who found it would know the truth. That really leaves someone from the yeshiva moved it for some reason like to stop the blood leaving the body even if they were not part of causing his death. This does make a lot of sense and would be in keeping with Jewish law.


LBG also writes that the police have other clues which they are not divulging so that the killer should not be aware they have them. After so many years maybe its time to think again about that.
RebZissel with his polish theory and whose present silence is rather deafening, is of course entitled to it. It is 'clean' and convenient since he is dead but should not need 25000 dollars to be proven. There was a previous ransom of 5000 dollars, and that would have been enough to convict him.
I dont know the state and layout of the dorm. But it is surprising that no one heard a thing.


In the AMI article the detective writes 'Because it was 'shabbos' they were cognizant of the fact it might be difficult to talk to people that day'. I fail to understand why a Jewish person is not allowed to talk about a murder on shabbos especially as time is of the essence in finding the killer.
The detective there writes he failed to show up for services and was found by a student. Earlier the article writes he was found by a counselor who was waking up the boys.( Are counselors also students? ) Much to his horror he discovered him stabbed repeatedly in the face head and neck.


The article makes a lot of the fact that parents were not present at the lie detector test. Why should a student even think of telling lies about a murder in which he has no hand. Do they really think the police will pin it on one of them even if its not true. That seems to be the case all along which therefore stopped them cooperating and stonewalling the investigation. The police did really go hard on them telling each of them 'you did it' according to the article that wont bring out the best information from them.


They also write 'That the police were 'enraged' that they were not told about an ongoing dispute between two staff members' and at the moment the yeshiva is flourishing. I would still like to know what this dispute was really about.

I notice on google that a Jewish site is discussing the case. There is some controversy there if one should report to the police. I am not sure what the pros and cons are perhaps our resident rabbi can explain it better but I suppose it has to do if he can expect a fair trial.

The father although having taken the yeshivo to court (later withdrawn) for not guarding the place or not informing him meaning he regarded it as an outside job now seems to think it was an inside job.

I would suggest to him that if he wants Jewish people to come forward he should have had a real rabbi at his side not a chaplain when asking them to come forward. And until he resolves this controversy he cant really expect any results.

Reb Chaim,

Would it be possible for you to put a space between your paragraphs? It's very hard to read. Thanks

I just answered your question about who found him.

Anton Weiss sued the school for not informing him of two stabbing deaths that happened in the area.

From a discussion, I had with one of Chaim's cousins - the family strongly believes that it was an anti-Semitic hate crime. They believe someone could see Chaim was alone in his room through his window and the killer decided to strike.

My issue with it being just a hate crime is that it was such a risky way to commit one. In a dorm full of people, not even on the first floor. It's not like it's difficult to find a Jew in Long Beach. If the perp just wanted to kill a random Jew, surely there were safer places to do it. I think the perp had to have some sort of connection, even a tenuous one, to the Yeshiva.

The late Chaim was found by his friend who was in his class and lived on the same floor. Today he is a Rabbi working in an Orthodox Jewish school system as both administrator and Judaic studies teacher.

What he found was not even close to the crime scene depicted in Unsolved Mysteries. It was gruesome.

He went to get an older counsellor who tried to determine whether Chaim was still alive when he entered the room.

The police were called. They arrived before the Rabbis came.

Everyone was interviewed immediately on that day.
Is it not possible the older counselor moved the body to determine if he was still alive.

I just answered your question about who found him.

Anton Weiss sued the school for not informing him of two stabbing deaths that happened in the area.

From a discussion, I had with one of Chaim's cousins - the family strongly believes that it was an anti-Semitic hate crime. They believe someone could see Chaim was alone in his room through his window and the killer decided to strike.
So why is the father asking now for the boys to come forward.

Reb Chaim,

You'll have to forgive me for what I am about to write. I have had some trouble understanding what you have posted.

What do Joseph and his brothers have to do with this murder? What do you mean by yeshiva fires? There was no fire in that school.

It seems you are taking bits and pieces from Jewish text and compiling them in your posts and making wild accusations.

I am absolutely certain that yeshiva students are left out of the politics among the staff. There is always that separation between students and rabbeim to the extent that students are not allowed to know any personal details about the teachers - age, first name, number of children, etc. Anyone who thinks Chaim was killed because he got involved in the staff politics has never attended a yeshiva. Students are not privy to such things.

The candle meant nothing...it was a sign of respect for Chaim and someone placed it there and forgot. It means nothing.
I hope they have nothing to do with this murder. I just wrote that these 'types of murder' happen among Jewish people which you say dont.
My fires comment was regarding another comment of yours which said such things dont happen among Jewish boys.
They dont know teachers first names. Are you Jewish at all. When they are called up for the Torah (bible reading) what names do they give.
Have you ever attended a yeshiva or for that matter a synagogue at all.

Reb Chaim,

I am fairly convinced that you are not Jewish. Your posts show a very rudimentary understanding of Judaism. You are either a poster posing as a Jew to get information or a member of the law enforcement community searching for any tips.

You are taking snippets from Jewish text and mischaracterizing them.

I am fairly convinced that you are a member of the law enforcement community.
How would you like me to prove to you I am Jewish and circumsized. What have I mischaracterized. The talmud in yuma which you havent replied to.
You seem to be under the impression that I am not Jewish like most people here, and you can say what you like about the Jewish religion without fear of rebuttal.You are therefore even prepared to say downright falsehoods thinking you can get away with it, like them not knowing first names. I am sorry but that is no way this case will be solved until you start telling the truth even about matters which are not really relevant. Remember I am Jewish and can check every statement of yours.

I was quoting the detective in the AMI magazine who seems to have a different recollection of what happened that day than the boy you refer to. He says because it was shabbos they wouldnt talk freely.

Reb Chaim, I will not engage in ad hominem attacks.

He was found by a fellow student who went to get the counsellor.

Mr. Weiss wants anyone who knows anything to come forward. He and his family want answers. Is it possible that someone was too afraid to say something when one of their classmates was murdered - very possible.

My point was that rabbeim do not believe that children should get involved in staff politics. There is a separation between the students and rabbeim. The theory that Chaim was killed for siding with one dean over the other sounds highly unlikely to me. It does not make sense when age is an important issue in yeshivas. I could not imagine a 15 year old boy getting involved in administrative matters in a school when rabbeim ranging from 30 to 80 are there to figure these things out.

You started the attacking and have not replied to a single post of mine.

I have already replied to you about what you call separation. Do you want me to list a whole group of yeshivot where the boys get involved in staff politics. For a start the main one in Israel when the dean died and there was an arguement in the family about the successor. I dont think this is the blog for it. Of course they say that they shouldnt get involved but they dont mean it since they need their fathers involvement. I made that very clear.

I oftentimes indulge in ad hominem expression which can open the debate. You should answer his points before some on this thread become suspicious of a no doubt well meaning yet dubious wiseacre living in Sydney,Australia claiming to have frequented two yeshivas in New York yet perpetuating his clandestinity in virtually everything he writes.

I suspect Mr. Weiss is asking the boys to come forward because it is possible that with the wisdom that comes with age, they may remember something that seemed inconsequential at the time that may actually be a key to solving this mystery. Those Yeshiva students are probably flung far and wide now and some may be hard to track down.

They all became hugely successful. Some became Rabbis, some professors, and other professions.

From the ones I have met...they all seem to have grown up into respectable men.

I wasn't implying that they hadn't become successful or respectable. In fact, quite the opposite, as the careers I would expect from yeshiva students are ones that tend to necessitate relocation: rabbis, professors, etc.

I imagine some are in Israel and others are spread across the US and the world at various temples, yeshivas and universities.

Thus... flung far and wide.

I dont know about the law enforcement officers knowledge of judaism but yours doesnt seem to be too much either. You havent answered a single thing of mine.

Back to the case. If you know the person who found the body why not bring him here to reply to us.

I dont think dead bodies are the norm and am surprised he didnt faint at seeing a stabbed and battered body or do they watch this kind of TV and are immune to it. If this happened six hours previously and and was so gruesome did he really 'look' alive and needed a second opinion.

I am sure that if they thought it wasnt one of them they would have given the police every possible assistance. Why they didnt and this 'streak' runs though the whole case is that they were scared of being accused and did not trust the police. Again one would like to hear a first hand account if this is true.

I see no reason why they should have been scared of the killer and therefore not bring him to justice if it wasnt one of them.

I also find it amazing that they didnt all leave the next day. The polish workers did. Werent they scared it could happen again. What about their parents. Why didnt they demand they come home immediately. What hold did this yeshiva have on them. Even if they had paid the fees and it was a prestigious place why did they stay.


The staff arguement must have been pretty serious and not something petty if the police were angry that they were not told about it. Again the reason they were scared is because it could somehow lead to their arrests. Like the detective said something isnt quite right. He cant put his finger on it but I am beginning to.

The Mesivta was known to be a magnate school. These were smart kids to begin with. From what my friend tells me, the curriculum was rigorous.

I can only say for certain that the teenage boys were not troubled students. They were good kids from fine families.

Teenage angst?

People have brought up these issues and they are valid, but if the entire student body was interviewed and nothing turned up, I believe there was an outside cause.

Good kids from fine families? Hmmm. Yeah, that's never gone wrong. Just from Unsolved Mysteries I can cite examples of "good kids from fine families" Alex Kelly. Michael Skakel. Brad Bishop. Ira Einhorn. You get the point.

I don't think it was a yeshiva kid, but that's because of the evidence or lack there of in the rest of the dorm, NOT because they were good kids from fine families.

The yeshiva asked other yeshivas not to accept students from Long Beach. If the students had all left, the yeshiva would have collapsed. There was an effort by the administration to keep the students in the school.

Reb Chaim, I was not there when they found the body. I assume, however, there was some serious panicking and the whole floor went into crisis mode.


So that explains it. At least now we are getting some honest answers. They forced the boys to stay. SHAME AND DISGRACE. They put these boys lives at risk because they wanted to keep the yeshiva open. So that the yeshiva shouldnt collapse is more important than the boys lives. Do you really hear what youre saying or must I put in even bigger block letters. Is this Torah. If this wasnt a non-Jewish blog I would have much more to say. I must take back a lot what of I have said till now thinking this was a DECENT yeshiva. Now because of this I can only think the worst of them.

I very much would like to hear from anyone at the yeshiva. Even privately please contact me. I am Jewish I assure you.

The yeshiva installed a security system that cost in the millions and enlisted numerous security guards throughout the buildings.

I do not know much else, but yes, the yeshiva did try to prevent itself from collapsing.
When I visited the yeshiva shortly after the murder I asked a student what extra security there was due to the murder and he said that they got locks on all the outside doors and a security guard that goes around all night.

Is it not possible the older counselor moved the body to determine if he was still alive.

It's possible but highly unlikely for two reasons.

1. He probably would have gotten blood all over his clothes which would have been found during the search.

2. The detectives were able to determine the approximate time of the murder and said that the body was moved around 45 minutes later. This was a few hours before he was discovered.

Back to the candle. There was already a candle burning in the room and no real need for a second one, put there two days afterwards. I dont believe anyone would go to collect 'blood' from a sealed room without police permission. More likely he went to retrieve or change some object perhaps a hebrew book or magazine which the police didnt afterwards notice. Why he put a second candle, some people perhaps do that, but its not the custom unless its a relation.


The moving of the body at least 45 minutes after the murder is really whats relevant and the most intriguing part of the case. That the killer stayed there or came back to retrieve something and then pushed him of the bed does not sound plausible at all. I suppose that the forensic cannot be mistaken, The police couldnt have moved it when they came since the one who found it would know the truth. That really leaves someone from the yeshiva moved it for some reason like to stop the blood leaving the body even if they were not part of causing his death. This does make a lot of sense and would be in keeping with Jewish law.



The candle is mysterious but I don't know why you are getting all caught up in it. There was a rabbi who had permission from the cops to clean up the room. He doesn't remember leaving the candle but he was known from before to be absent minded.

Why isn't it plausible that the killer waited around for 45 minutes to change clothes and clean up any evidence? The killer probably also wanted to make sure that anyone who may have gotten woken up went back to sleep.

Ok thanks for your posts. We may still be able to get to the bottom of it.
First of all I didnt say fires with fatalities. Do your search again and you will find many yeshiva fires. I must mention I do know of a few with fatalities.
I am sure the practice is for a member of the burial society to do it or to supervise it. If he would have purchased it specially or had it in his pocket he would remember lighting it or leaving it there. I still think this aspect should have been investigated.
So here are some questions.
What are yeshiva boys doing on Halloween on a friday night in the streets. Looking or asking for trouble.
Why has no reward been issued till now. The family seems to be able to afford it. Why the reluctance for the father to be interviewed. Why has no member of the yeshiva ever been interviewed. I understand someone there has just passed away is it coincidence that this case has now been reopened. What were the boys last movements on Friday night. Did he also go out 'on' the town. Who was the last to see him and what was he doing then. Why such a confusion of who found him dead in the morning a boy or an adult. Why hide such an important fact. What exactly was the murder weapon or was there more than one. Was it a normal kitchen knife which a boy could have found or something more sinister. The story sounds that more than one person was involved at least after the death, are we sure that only one person was. What exactly went on with the body how often was it moved and where exactly to. It would be very difficult for a boy or even a member of staff to 'clean' his clothing or do away with it on the shabbos if it was blood spattered. Do we know if this was likely. How much blood was all over the room and if there was, something must have got to the murderers or his accomplices shoes which would show when he went away on the floor. This sounds like the perfect crime which leaves absolutely no traces, I just cant believe it. The body was moved so the person moving it must have left some traces. Is it normal for the yeshiva to open so early after the holidays.
Now we come to the yeshiva staff dispute. Why the secrecy of what it was about after so many years. Just saying it is not relevant isnt good enough. I am sure if the boys knew about it and we havent been told they hadnt they would have taken sides. It could very well have been about this boy. Why exactly did he have the only single room. Was it an 'honor' or for some other reason. Was it by any chance to keep him away from others.
What I can gather from all this, is that the yeshiva and the father have something to hide even after so many years and the answer lies between them somewhere. Just 'throwing' it now on a dead polish worker which it seems is what they are trying to do, hoping someone will somehow claim the reward and then we will be able to forget about it isnt good enough.
It may not be right to talk 'ill' of the dead, but we have to find closure.
I may add the detective leading the case interviewed in the AMI magazine which has very many pages covering this story almost the whole magazine insists it was an 'inside' job and believes in his words 'Something isnt quite right'. He also states that he wasnt aware till now that a Jewish person is reluctant to 'tell' on another one even in a murder inquiry. That is something I dont understand for a detective on the case not knowing that. 'Isnt quite right' is an understatement there is something decidedly wrong here. I of course dont know all the facts but I would be very surprised if there are any which precluded cooperating with the police.

I think RebZissel answered most of hese.

You asked what yeshiva boys are doing out on Halloween Night? The dining room was three blocks from the dorm, they had to get back somehow.

It's possible but highly unlikely for two reasons.

1. He probably would have gotten blood all over his clothes which would have been found during the search.

2. The detectives were able to determine the approximate time of the murder and said that the body was moved around 45 minutes later. This was a few hours before he was discovered.

Maybe he did have blood all over his clothes. If he checked if he was alive he most likely did. And the police accepted his explanation. How do you know he didnt.

The wording in AMI is at 'least' 45 minutes after his death, not that it couldnt have been a lot later. It also writes from the detective that it could have been anytime between 1 to 7:30 am.


Not very approximate and something I find rather hard to believe. On films they always manage to do better than that.

His body was discovered shortly after 7:30. We dont know when the police arrived the article doesnt mention. Most likely at least 45 minutes later. Again something we should know.

That must be the reason they think it was an inside job done at around 7:30.


I thought you got your information from there, if not please tell us where you got yours from. Or have I misunderstood the AMI article.

T

The candle is mysterious but I don't know why you are getting all caught up in it. There was a rabbi who had permission from the cops to clean up the room. He doesn't remember leaving the candle but he was known from before to be absent minded.

Why isn't it plausible that the killer waited around for 45 minutes to change clothes and clean up any evidence? The killer probably also wanted to make sure that anyone who may have gotten woken up went back to sleep.

Where do you get your information from that the rabbi had permission to go into a sealed room. The detective on the net says it was sealed. There is not much point in sealing a room if you allow someone to go in there to 'clean' up.

Well if he thought someone had woken up the last thing he would do would be to move the body which could wake someone up again. Why he waited can be explained like you say maybe his exit wasnt clear although it wouldnt take 45 minutes to change and clean up. Its the moving of the body which I read was done twice which I dont think a killer would do and in this case dont believe he did which must make some noise, which is the real problem.

Someone mentioned about the light. I suppose there was a hall light which could shine through if the door was open. It would be interesting to know if the killer had switched on the light. Its not that easy to work in the dark. Can someone tell us more about it. Was the room with the door closed in complete darkness. Or do street lights shine in.

When I visited the yeshiva shortly after the murder I asked a student what extra security there was due to the murder and he said that they got locks on all the outside doors and a security guard that goes around all night.

A few locks wouldnt cost the 'millions' RebZissel talks about, and where would a yeshiva find millions from. I also would like to know more about how the father expected them to pay the fifteen million he sued them for.

He certainly never expected them to be able to pay it. And its not that he needed their money. So what was his real purpose in suing them.

I still believe that the investigation was hampered by the fact that these detectives just did not have the faintest clue about Orthodox Judaism and did not enlist the help of anyone who was well-versed in it.


Older yeshiva bochurs were spending Shabbos in Lakewood, NJ. The students who were in the dorm the night Chaim was murdered asked why those students who were in Lakewood were not investigated. The police responded by explaining that because it was Shabbos surely they wouldn't drive over (only 80 miles) to Long Beach and kill someone. It was the Sabbath!

Quite foolish. If someone wants to kill someone, then observing the Sabbath is the last thing they care about.

The police just over-inflated the religious aspects of the school. This was a murder like any other and the police lost sight of that as they became mired in the environment. That was the reason this was not solved.

I am sure these older boys were together in Lakewood although I would like to know what they were doing there. What is so special about the shabbos there what they cant have in their own yeshiva. I read elsewhere
on the net that their own 'chulent' (shabbos food) is very good, so thats not the reason they went to Lakewood. http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21920211&postID=113933108599302971&isPopup=true
They most likely all had alibis which the police no doubt checked. What the police 'responded' to students asking 'why us' doesnt really count.

Maybe he did have blood all over his clothes. If he checked if he was alive he most likely did. And the police accepted his explanation. How do you know he didnt.

The wording in AMI is at 'least' 45 minutes after his death, not that it couldnt have been a lot later. It also writes from the detective that it could have been anytime between 1 to 7:30 am.


Not very approximate and something I find rather hard to believe. On films they always manage to do better than that.

His body was discovered shortly after 7:30. We dont know when the police arrived the article doesnt mention. Most likely at least 45 minutes later. Again something we should know.

That must be the reason they think it was an inside job done at around 7:30.


I thought you got your information from there, if not please tell us where you got yours from. Or have I misunderstood the AMI article.

T

I rushed through the AMI article looking for any information that I didn't know before. It was a lengthy article but I only learned a few details.

I always believed that the murder took place shortly after 1:00 although I didn't hear that from any official source, just people that were there at the time. Detectives have a way of determining a time of death to within a half hour or so. (The body temperature is taken twice at different time periods and the times are noted, then the "rate of temperature change" can be calculated and using that rate the time can be calculated by setting the initial temperature to 98.6. This method has limitations- especially when the surrounding temperature is very hot but works good when it's cold outside and the window is open)

They also said that the body was moved around 45 minutes later, this would have been a few hours before he was discovered. I think this is enough indication that he wasn't moved by the person who found him.

If it was the person who found him then he would have had blood on his clothing and the cops would have discovered this. Since this is something that the detectives still consider part of the case it's doubtful that that was the sequence of events.

Where do you get your information from that the rabbi had permission to go into a sealed room. The detective on the net says it was sealed. There is not much point in sealing a room if you allow someone to go in there to 'clean' up.

Well if he thought someone had woken up the last thing he would do would be to move the body which could wake someone up again. Why he waited can be explained like you say maybe his exit wasnt clear although it wouldnt take 45 minutes to change and clean up. Its the moving of the body which I read was done twice which I dont think a killer would do and in this case dont believe he did which must make some noise, which is the real problem.

Someone mentioned about the light. I suppose there was a hall light which could shine through if the door was open. It would be interesting to know if the killer had switched on the light. Its not that easy to work in the dark. Can someone tell us more about it. Was the room with the door closed in complete darkness. Or do street lights shine in.

This I think was in the AMI article, I think everyone agreed that the rabbi was in there but he claims he didn't leave the candle. Many people think he may have forgotten since he was known to be absent minded.

The room was sealed to stop the general public from going in, not someone who had permission from the cops and a valid reason for entering.

If one gets woken up from a loud noise in middle of the night and then hears more noise they will probably stay awake. If one gets woken up from a loud noise but doesn't hear anything else they will probably fall back asleep within a few minutes. It appears that the murder was violent and vicious but moving the body may have been very quiet. I can't answer about the body being moved twice but I do think it can easily take 45 minutes to change clothing, wrap up everything (clothing, weapons...) in plastic and somehow finding a way to lower everything out the window quietly.

What was mentioned about the light?

A few locks wouldnt cost the 'millions' RebZissel talks about, and where would a yeshiva find millions from. I also would like to know more about how the father expected them to pay the fifteen million he sued them for.

He certainly never expected them to be able to pay it. And its not that he needed their money. So what was his real purpose in suing them.

That is something I disagree with RebZissel on. There is no way that they would have been able to afford anything close to that. I think he made a mistake.

People don't always sue for the money, maybe he wanted the case to get back in the news, maybe he wanted the faculty to have to answer some questions under oath? There could be many reasons besides money.

I am sure these older boys were together in Lakewood although I would like to know what they were doing there. What is so special about the shabbos there what they cant have in their own yeshiva. I read elsewhere
on the net that their own 'chulent' (shabbos food) is very good, so thats not the reason they went to Lakewood. http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21920211&postID=113933108599302971&isPopup=true
They most likely all had alibis which the police no doubt checked. What the police 'responded' to students asking 'why us' doesnt really count.

From what I understand (and I may be wrong- I never asked this to anyone who was there at the time) the post high school students return for Simchas Torah while the high school students do not. (That's how it was in the yeshivas that I was in.)

The yeshiva therefore gives them a few extra days vacation after the high school starts. Instead of going back home (which can be far for some of them), why not go to Lakewood which is nearby and possibly meet up with old friends who are doing the same thing?

The AMI is an official source from the detectives themselves. I also wrote I find it surprising that they cant point more to the exact time of death. I think you should trust them rather than your 'beliefs' and base your ideas of who did it on them.

That is something I disagree with RebZissel on. There is no way that they would have been able to afford anything close to that. I think he made a mistake.

People don't always sue for the money, maybe he wanted the case to get back in the news, maybe he wanted the faculty to have to answer some questions under oath? There could be many reasons besides money.

That was my point. If he wants people to come forward he should start by becoming clean himself and tell us exactly why he sued. I also know there are many reasons, I want to know what they are. We have his family 'watching' this blog, I want them to tell us.

This I think was in the AMI article, I think everyone agreed that the rabbi was in there but he claims he didn't leave the candle. Many people think he may have forgotten since he was known to be absent minded.

The room was sealed to stop the general public from going in, not someone who had permission from the cops and a valid reason for entering.

What was mentioned about the light?

The AMI only says a boy said so not everyone agrees.

The room was sealed most likely for forensic evidence. It was only two days after the murder. They would never allow anyone in.

The AMI is an official source from the detectives themselves. I also wrote I find it surprising that they cant point more to the exact time of death. I think you should trust them rather than your 'beliefs' and base your ideas of who did it on them.

I must have missed that- I didn't read the article carefully enough. I also thought that it said there that they couldn't get any of the original detectives to agree to an interview.

The AMI only says a boy said so not everyone agrees.

The room was sealed most likely for forensic evidence. It was only two days after the murder. They would never allow anyone in.

I've heard this from multiple sources over the years. If the rabbi wasn't allowed access into the room he would have said that. What he said was that he didn't leave the candle.

Rabbi or not- someone got into a "sealed" room somehow to leave something and I doubt it was the murderer.

Have the cops ever answered how someone got into a "sealed" room?

My posts have now had about 1000 views and I havent been on for a week. But no one seems to help solving the case which I thought this blog was about.

I have come to some very interesting conclusions, no I havent cracked the case and dont know who 'done' it but I think I know quite a lot more about it. I have asked a lot of questions and so have others, about the case, and with my conclusions many get answered. I dont know the facts more than anyone else, but if you keep to them and not believe what 'everyone says' like Avi, then a whole different picture emerges. The police have told us very little, they themselves agree they havent divulged everything, but I think I can safely say that I know some of those things which will greatly explain their actions.

If they have opened the case again after so many years they must believe they can solve it this time. They dont believe the killer will come forward whatever they offer. And I dont believe all they are doing is just waiting for someone to come forward with information. The detective has said they have only a 'hair' and nothing else and this 'hair' cant be touched for fear of destroying it. So that is not the route they are going for.

So I am calling out to all the fireside detectives on here. What do you make of the whole story before I give my own opinion. I am of course looking for something new not mentioned before.

I say again to Avi and others. Any fact which has not been verified please discount whatever 'everyone' says.

Are you folks reading the goyim's postings at all? I've already said that getting into a "sealed" room is easy. It wasn't shrink wrapped or anything. It was most likely either crime scene tape or a sticker the size of about a sheet of copier paper put on the door. Whoever put the candle in there didn't need super powers. They probably didn't even need an exacto knife.

The candle meant absolutely nothing and in fact, had nothing to do with this crime.

It's sad and quite ridiculous that a "mysterious yahrtzeit candle" became a component of this crime when it really meant nothing.

The motive for why Chaim was killed, the ways the killer may have entered the crime scene, and forensic evidence at the scene are far more important than any candle lit days after the murder or boy sitting on a boardwalk where thousands of people come and go all day.

The reason why the candle means so much is because the police believe this was an 'inside job' meaning a Jewish one. They therefore think the killer perhaps out of remorse went to a sealed room to light it.

I have already stated that I think I know now more about the case. I also dont believe everything the police say. It is possible they only say it to 'draw' out the killer even if its not true. I am still waiting for others to 'sum' up the case and give their opinion before I give mine.

This will include mainly the police perspective on the case. Why are they so adamant that it must be an inside one. According to AMI they never even bothered checking the neighbors. In the words of the detective there are certain things that make me want to look 'inside' (again).

What could they possibly be. Well we cant know that unless he tells us. But we can work some things out for ourselves. He is unlikely to find any forensic evidence after so many years. All they can do is talk to people. Which he says they will now do since they are 'grown' up and not 'constrained' by the yeshiva.


These people can only be Jewish ones from the yeshiva. Who are now spread out all over the world and will need to be tracked down. Again unless they have something positive to go on, they wouldnt be back on it. And I dont think its just because they have 'grown' up.

Now as well that they have reopened it with a team of two detectives who have been working on it for eight months to a year. One wonders what they have already come up with in such a long time apart from increasing the reward from 5000 to 25000. I think what they have come up with is that they are now more convinced than ever that it is a Jewish crime.

From AMI. They expect the 'boys' to come up with any information or suspicion they regarded insignificant at the time. I dont think that means that they heard anything in the night and have suddenly remembered. It means either one of the boys subsequently, maybe many years later is acting strangely (see the daas torah blog where one boy mentions this) or while discussing it among themselves they have suspicions.

Now about the crime itself. The police cant give a more specific time than 1 to 7:30. I dont believe it. I am sure they know the almost exact time.



The boy who found him. Let us say it was a boy. Why did he go. One version is that he was sent to wake him up because he wasnt there for prayers. At 7:30 on a shabbos morning I would have thought its too early for prayers and he wouldnt be sent at 7:30. So why did he go. He must have heard something in the night or some other suspicions. I have asked continuously about this and not receiving any answers have to give my own. One would like to know exactly when prayers started and when all the boys had left the building. Could the crime have been done then. It would explain why no one heard anything in the night which is rather surprising.


He thought the dead boy was still alive or wasnt sure. I cant believe again that a repeatedly stabbed body already hours old should show some signs of life or appear to do so. He didnt faint on the spot, I suppose because he thought he was still alive. The adult he called also had to 'check' which sounds like he also wasnt sure at first. Although we dont know what kind of a 'check' was needed.

A window doesnt open by itself and neither do dead spirits open it. Since no one admitted to opening it, then it could only have been the dead boy or his killer. How is it there were no fresh fingerprints on it.

We havent been told what kind of a knife was used except that a knife was found and afterwards rejected. That must prove that the knife that was found was similar to the one used. One would like to know what kind of a knife that was. Again unless the police returned that knife there may be reasons for not believing them. Once one knows the type of knife, one could ascertain if it was a 'professional' job or not. A hired killer wouldnt be using a kitchen one even to allay suspicion on others.

Reb Chaim,
Why would it be strange to wake him up at 7:30?
Some Shabbos morning prayers start early some later.
If the morning prayers started at 8am, then what is the big deal about waking him up at 7:30?

It would be strange that they sent a boy to wake him for not yet having turned up at 7:30.

I shall quote the detective from AMI. was found the next morning by a student when he didnt show up for shabbos services. His body was discovered at approximately 7:30.

Someone had apparently sent the student to find out where he was because he hadnt appeared for services. It wasnt a random check The student discovered the deceased.

These are the words of the detective to which I was referring. It doesnt sound true that services are so early. You seem to agree with that.
If this is the best the police and the detectives can do, dont expect any results.

My theory is that boy was killed after everyone had left the building. Why they all left so early I dont know. The detective words would then make some sense. And it would explain everything else. How no one heard anything, and why the boy who went to look for him thought he was alive. I read the shul prayer house is ten minutes away.

Detective L John Azzata claims he was present and is now heading the inquiry. If he cant get his fact straight however long after the event it is dont expect results.

His wording in AMI. Back then I was .. a brand new police officer.... I had been only 3 or four years (why doesnt he know exactly) I was in uniform patrol. But I still remember the case.

DO THE POLICE READ THIS BLOG.

33918 IS THE PRESENT viewing COUNT. Cant anyone else help.

I dont know the facts more than anyone else, but if you keep to them and not believe what 'everyone says' like Avi, then a whole different picture emerges. The police have told us very little, they themselves agree they havent divulged everything, but I think I can safely say that I know some of those things which will greatly explain their actions.



What are the undisputable facts about the case?

You mention in this very post that the police have told us very little. (And as you mention later on, the detective can't even get his facts straight.) You also mention later on that you don't believe everything the police say.

Over the years I have spoken to many people who have been there and to people who heard what happened first hand from people that have been there. I don't suppose that they all got together and conspired to tell me something that's not true. In cases where the information matched by all accounts (like by the candle) I consider this as factual as it can get.

The reason why the candle means so much is because the police believe this was an 'inside job' meaning a Jewish one. They therefore think the killer perhaps out of remorse went to a sealed room to light it.

I'm going do disagree with you based on a simple mima nafshuch- if the room was sealed in a way that no one could enter with out permission from the cops- how did the murderer get in to leave the candle when he felt remorse? If the room was just cordoned off and anyone can come and go as they please- what makes you think this was the murderer and not anyone being sympathetic.


I have already stated that I think I know now more about the case. I also dont believe everything the police say. It is possible they only say it to 'draw' out the killer even if its not true. I am still waiting for others to 'sum' up the case and give their opinion before I give mine.

This will include mainly the police perspective on the case. Why are they so adamant that it must be an inside one. According to AMI they never even bothered checking the neighbors. In the words of the detective there are certain things that make me want to look 'inside' (again).

What could they possibly be. Well we cant know that unless he tells us. But we can work some things out for ourselves. He is unlikely to find any forensic evidence after so many years. All they can do is talk to people. Which he says they will now do since they are 'grown' up and not 'constrained' by the yeshiva.


One hypothesis that I had was that it was a former student or a prospective student who applied but wasn't accepted. If so, the murderer would have been able to blend into the crowd (and have access to the entire dorm) without being noticed. I'd still consider that an inside job and I find it foolish that the cops didn't bother checking the neighbors. (Some neighbors have close relationships with the students- inviting them for Shabbos meals- and it would have been easy for a former student to find a place nearby to stay.) When I went there for a Shabbos for an entrance exam I was given the combinations to all the dorms.




The boy who found him. Let us say it was a boy. Why did he go. One version is that he was sent to wake him up because he wasnt there for prayers. At 7:30 on a shabbos morning I would have thought its too early for prayers and he wouldnt be sent at 7:30. So why did he go. He must have heard something in the night or some other suspicions. I have asked continuously about this and not receiving any answers have to give my own. One would like to know exactly when prayers started and when all the boys had left the building. Could the crime have been done then. It would explain why no one heard anything in the night which is rather surprising.

There is a student in every yeshiva called a "vekker" who has the job of waking everyone up in the morning. That person goes to every room. At times there are other students who go around just to make sure no one went back to sleep. Prayers were most likely not before 8:00, which would make it impossible for someone to notice he is not a prayers (usually waiting 15 minutes to make sure he isn't just running late), walk to the dorm (a ten minute walk) and discover him dead at 7:30.



He thought the dead boy was still alive or wasnt sure. I cant believe again that a repeatedly stabbed body already hours old should show some signs of life or appear to do so. He didnt faint on the spot, I suppose because he thought he was still alive. The adult he called also had to 'check' which sounds like he also wasnt sure at first. Although we dont know what kind of a 'check' was needed.


Keep in mind that the lights weren't on, he may have had to take a closer look.




A window doesnt open by itself and neither do dead spirits open it. Since no one admitted to opening it, then it could only have been the dead boy or his killer. How is it there were no fresh fingerprints on it.



Same way there were no fingerprints on anything else- the killer must have used gloves.

I said about the candle, that, that was what the police think. I only know it was a sealed room at the time, from a detective on the net. How well sealed I have no idea.

About the student who found him I have explained in a further post that I was referring to the detective.


I would also like to know if the adult counselor he called was in the building at the time. Did he also sleep there or did he have to be called which would have taken quite some time.

About the fingerprints on the window that was my point. It was most likely the killer who did it and not the ones who found him. If the dead boy opened the window there should have been some prints.

I am sure there are other things he says which are not correct and wonder how he expects to solve the case.

I am sure there are other things he says which are not correct and wonder how he expects to solve the case.

He probably won't go for this but maybe if they release the entire file some people may be able to find something significant that the cops originally overlooked.

This might have been a hate crime. Some Long Beach residents were known to throw eggs at boys. Police arrived and they fled.

Maybe this was some sort of retaliation. The open window always struck me as unimportant, but it is possible someone tried to dump Chaim's body out of the window.

When the killer failed, he just left him there.

There were egg-throwing incidents. Maybe there is a connection?

Connection : maybe .... maybe not
If this was just a plain old hate crime I would have expected Chaim to have been attacked in the streets in the same way as boys were harassed outside the Yeshiva and the killers would probably have chased him attacked him and left him were the attack took place and they would have run away as is typical of such cowardly hate crime attacks .

If the people harrassing the students had ever attacked any of the students inside the Yeshiva then it would make more sense for it being just a plain hate crime if you get my jist ....

The fact that the killer may have returned to the crime scene 45 minutes later , and probably checked another room before Chaims suggests that there was another primary motive in addition to the possibility of this being a hate crime ...

Connection : maybe .... maybe not
If this was just a plain old hate crime I would have expected Chaim to have been attacked in the streets in the same way as boys were harassed outside the Yeshiva and the killers would probably have chased him attacked him and left him were the attack took place and they would have run away as is typical of such cowardly hate crime attacks .

If the people harrassing the students had ever attacked any of the students inside the Yeshiva then it would make more sense for it being just a plain hate crime if you get my jist ....

The fact that the killer may have returned to the crime scene 45 minutes later , and probably checked another room before Chaims suggests that there was another primary motive in addition to the possibility of this being a hate crime ...


You don't think it is the janitor Chiam complained about?

I presume you are referring to the suspect I mentioned on this board two years ago. There were those in the school who believed he was the one who came back a few months later to kill a student.

My friend, who attended this school, remembers him well because of his fierce temper.

He had an alibi. He was serving on a military base, so the police did not pursue him as a serious suspect.

He returned to Poland and died there. Police have traveled there to talk to his family members.



They should have scene if the dna they found matched the janitors.

You don't think it is the janitor Chiam complained about?

The janitor fits in the statement I made of the crime possibly being due to some other motive such as revenge and a hate crime ...... revenge probably being the primary motive

The janitor fits in the statement I made of the crime possibly being due to some other motive such as revenge and a hate crime ...... revenge probably being the primary motive

Exspecally if the story is true about Cheim's complaint getting him fired and Janitor being mad enough to come back and kill Cheim because of it.

I knew about this suspect since 2002 and finally decided to post what I had heard in 2011 on page 8 and 9. I felt why keep this secret. The case was cold and maybe posting it would lead to a renewed effort to investigate this man. I submitted this tip to the police several times, and I have no idea what they did with it.

I remember my friend telling me how this suspect really stood out and the theory is that he was the one who came back to kill someone. He would fight with students and ended things badly there. He was either fired or quit. Had a bad experience. Lost his housing. Enlisted in the army.

He left back to Poland and died there.....so who knows now....


I wonder if Cheim realy complained about him? Anyway sounds like a lot of boys probably complained about him to get him fired. So why kill Cheim , unless he was the most conventient being his room was buy that broken door.

I'm not sure if this has been asked and answered somewhere within this thread, but I was wondering if anybody knew whether the Chaim's dorm room was used after the murder. Did anybody live there after him, or did they leave it vacant? Just curious--I feel like after such a gruesome and horrific murder, the desire to subsequently live there would be severely limited.

I'm not sure if this has been asked and answered somewhere within this thread, but I was wondering if anybody knew whether the Chaim's dorm room was used after the murder. Did anybody live there after him, or did they leave it vacant? Just curious--I feel like after such a gruesome and horrific murder, the desire to subsequently live there would be severely limited.

When I visited the yeshiva shortly after the murder I was told that the dorm wasn't used for students anymore and detectives were taking the inside of the building apart one piece at a time to look for the murder weapon.

I was also told that the workers who lived in the building (in the basement) are still living there.

The article in the AMI Magazine said that it was closed for many years but was recently reopened due to the increased enrollment. It also said that there were plans to go back in and look for clues during he summer recess.

I remember asking a former student who attended a couple of years after the murder whether the Rabbis ever discussed this tragedy with the students. He flatly rejected the question and said something to the effect of: Rabbeim would never discuss such a thing with us.

I think the administration warned everyone not to keep repeating details of the tragedy in order to resurrect the reputation of the school. Like I said before, it was a magnate school. The tragedy destroyed its reputation.

I don't think students who attended years later really knew where it occurred.

Now that you mention that- I don't recall any of the rabbis being interviewed for the AMI article.

Looking back I think it's ironic that even shortly after the murder it was still considered a top yeshiva and very hard to get accepted to. The only friends of mine that got in were top students.

The rabbis may have not talked about it but it is a story that just about every kid in every yeshiva knows about. I don't know how any student there could not have know where it took place.

Strange article. Lit candle left in the room the day of the murder? That's not what I heard. It was supposedly after the crime scene was sealed and may have been a few days later.

This is the first that I have heard of him being covered in a blanket.

This rabbi may be misremembering what happened 27 years ago.

I am still of the opinion that the murder had ZERO religious significance to the way Chaim's body was found.

Why doesn't it mention which rabbi it was?

Also 200 students? Where did that come from?

Why doesn't it mention which rabbi it was?

Also 200 students? Where did that come from?


No wonder they can not solve this case. The Rabi's keep changing the info.

No wonder they can not solve this case. The Rabi's keep changing the info.

I don't think they interviewed a rabbi for the story, there were too many facts wrong.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Long-Island-Teen-Murder-November-1986-Cold-Case-Reopens-Chaim-Weiss-209250321.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_NYBrand

Seeing the actual dorm and surroundings makes it very clear how someone could come in unnoticed. It looks like a sleepy suburban area.

I wonder how thoroughly the neighbors were investigated.

According to the article in he AMI Magazine they weren't contacted at all.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Long-Island-Teen-Murder-November-1986-Cold-Case-Reopens-Chaim-Weiss-209250321.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_NYBrand

Seeing the actual dorm and surroundings makes it very clear how someone could come in unnoticed. It looks like a sleepy suburban area.

I wonder how thoroughly the neighbors were investigated.

It was quite interesting seeing the actual building , I was imagining it at night - it must me a quiet street . The really promising thing about that news story is that they have DNA - there could be light at the end of the tunnel ......

I think there may have been some questions here about the Weiss family. I recently spoke with a friend of the family who told me that they still live in Staten Island and that Chaim has a younger brother and younger sister who are both married with kids.

His parents are still hoping to get some answers so they can finally have some closure and have a hard time talking about it all these years later.

I'd be more convinced it was related to the date if he was found Halloween morning, not Nov 1st. I would think someone who killed him because he was a Yeshiva kid would have done it on Mischief Night (October 30th), NOT Halloween.

Point taken, but....

Do you seriously think someone who wakes up on Halloween morning and decides to kill someone will suddenly have a change of heart because it was past midnight and technically November 1?


That's not what I said. I said I would be more inclined to believe it if it happened the night before it happened. Mischief night, not Halloween. So he would have been killed THURSDAY night/early Friday morning and found Friday morning, not killed Friday night/early Saturday morning and found Saturday morning. Mischief night is a separate 'holiday' from Halloween.

My friend said that the side entrance that CCmmze referred to led to an internal staircase that led to a passageway taking the person to an alcove of Chaim's room that was used as his closet. In other words, the killer never had to walk in the hallway. The killer could have entered the side entrance, walked up the stairs, entered the passageway, and entered Chaim's closet and walk through it to enter his room.

Creepy.....

Do you have any idea if this building was originally built as a dorm? It sounds like it had an akward layout.

If the Yeshiva purchased it and converted it into a dorm do you know what it functioned as when it was built?

Do you have any idea if this building was originally built as a dorm? It sounds like it had an akward layout.

If the Yeshiva purchased it and converted it into a dorm do you know what it functioned as when it was built?

Sounds like it could have been an building with servant corridors. The interior passages in old homes/buildings allow for servants to get between places in the building without being seen/disturbing the rich folk. :)

I have no idea.

What I find interesting about this is that only an insider who was there would know about this passageway and entrance/closet into Chaim's room.

If there were any DNA evidence in that closet - a trail of blood, the killer's hair, fingerprints, etc, then that is a 100% indication that whoever it was had to be VERY familiar with the building to know about this passageway AND that the reason Chaim was killed was because this entrance led to his closet, which means it was an easy way to enter the building undetected to kill someone.

My point is that if DNA evidence belonging to the killer were found in the closet/alcove entrance/passageway then it most certainly had to be someone connected to the school in some way who had knowledge about the building and since this was the most convenient way to enter undetected then that is why Chaim was killed. Sadly, it may have been this hidden passageway that determined his untimely fate.


I respectfully disagree. Regardless of how well the area that the door led to was hidden, the door itself was in full view from the outside.

But not this passageway that led to his closet/alcove of the room. That is something that would not be easily found. Who would know that this hidden passageway led to a walk through closet that took you into a room with one of the few boys who did not have a roommate?

I have always believed that the killer was familiar with the dorm.

If the murderer used the door that led from the outside of the building straight to the alcove why wouldn't the alcove have been easily found? Why would anyone have had to have known this from before?

100 pct this case is never solved, fun to speculate I suppose

100 pct this case is never solved, fun to speculate I suppose
Maybe we're all looking for an Agatha Christie type ending to this crime whilst the more prosaic truth is sordid and seedy,as the perpetrator lies quietly six feet underground in a deserted Wroclaw cemetery.

Maybe.

He had an alibi.

There is also an error in the Hamodia article. This man was fired a few months before the crime, not after.

I truly believe that if his DNA were tested, it would be a match.

Did you mean the Ami article or was there one in the Hamodia as well?

I maintain this had nothing really to do with Halloween. In the greater NYC area, Halloween is a kids holiday. The troublemakers go out on Mischief Night (or Devil's night to some) and make trouble then. That is when eggs are thrown, flaming poop ring and runs occur and trees are festively vandalized with pilfered toilet paper. This was even more true in the 1980s. (Reference the movie The Crow, the couple was murdered the night before their Halloween wedding... Devil's night)

That aside, if this was a murder to 'celebrate' Halloween or Samhain, there almost certainly would be fire involved.

This is very interesting.

I agree. Provided the accuracy, I think this could be extremely viable.

PR Newswire

February 6, 1987, Friday

WABC-TV'S 'EYEWITNESS NEWS' CONTINUES EXCLUSIVE REPORTS

LENGTH: 296 words

DATELINE: NEW YORK, Feb. 5



NEW YORK, Feb. 5 /PRN/ -- Channel 7's ''Eyewitness
News'' has reported exclusively that Long Beach police and the
Nassau County homicide unit are exploring the possibility that
the seven incidents where people have been beaten while they
slept in their homes in the Long Beach area during the last
nine months may be linked to one sadistic attacker.
''Eyewitness News'' first learned of the possible connection
between the assaults Monday, Feb. 2, through a doctor closely
associated with the cases, but who asked not to be identified
because he feared retaliation from the perpetrator. The most
recent case was approximately two weeks ago, when 64-year-old
Joseph Mead was hit several times on the head with a blunt
instrument. Before that was the Yeshiva murder, when 16-year-old
Chaim Weiss was savagely beaten at a Long Beach Yeshiva for
orthodox Jews. ''Eyewitness News'' reporter Larry Mendte was
told by the doctor that the wounds on Mead and Weiss were almost
identical: ''The skull,'' said the doctor, ''is broken in so
many tiny fragments ... that it looks like a cracked eggshell.''
Mendte's exclusive report on Tuesday, Feb. 3, included information
from the Nassau and Long Beach police that all the attacks seemed
to follow a similar pattern: Victims live alone; live near
each other; there is no known motive; no sign of forced entry;
similar wounds; and all brutal attacks. ''Eyewitness News''
will continue its exclusive coverage of the Long Beach attacker
on the 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. news editions as new details develop.

I was interested enough by this to do some more digging, and to spend a little of my own money. My first blush thoughts about the notion of a serial killer wandering the streets of Long Beach, as is possibly described here, were these:

1. Serial killers whose only motive is the kill itself - i.e., not sexual, or not someone who is perfectly willing to kill anyone who gets in his way as he commits other felonies (like burglary, for example) but who is not starting out with murder as the object of his plans, are extremely rare. It happens of course, and if there is evidence that bends in that direction it must be considered, but it is extremely rare. Most serial killers one can name off the top of one's head were sexually motivated (Gacy, Bundy, Ridgway, een Jack the Ripper). There are those who killed just because they liked killing, and for no other reason than the kill itself, but consulting this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims) of serial killers is instructive in demonstrating just how rare a phenomenon that is, particularly when you consider that there are over 6 billion people on the planet.

2. Since this article suggests that there is no evident pattern to these victims, and the only thing linking them is that they were from the same general area, were assaulted by someone who beat them about the head, and that they lived alone, we can probably assume there was no evident sexual motive. Just the spread in age between Weiss (16) and Meade (64) suggests that, and as far we can ascertain, there was no sexual assault.

3. Chaim Weiss had nothing worth stealing, so burglary is out.

4. We are hard-wired to want to see patterns, particularly when we are presented with something senseless, like the brutal murder of a 16 year old. We WANT to see a pattern; if it seems truly random, we want to connect it to something else.

5. And, finally, to be very nit-picky, I don't know that Chaim Weiss even fits the pattern the above article attempts to assert. It talks of how all the victims lived "alone." I don't know that Chaim Weiss lives alone in the same way someone living alone in a single apartment in an apartment building lives "alone." If we were talking about a house, for example, where someone lived with other people but had his/her own bedroom (like a kid living with his parents, or even a group of college kids or young people who've rented a house), we wouldn't describe that person as living "alone." I feel as if Chaim Weiss's living arrangement was closer to people with a common purpose sharing a living space than it is to an apartment building, where the only thing folks have in common is that they are renting space inside a building. I don't think I've been very eloquent in articulating the distinction, but hopefully people see what I mean.

All this led me to think, on the one hand, that it was unlikely that there really was a serial killer in the area. On the other hand, it's undeniably compelling that "similar" attacks occurred within a similar time frame in the same general area. So, I wanted to learn more. First, I wondered about Joseph Meade (his name is incorrectly spelled in the article above). I wondered perhaps if his case was later solved. If it was, I can't find anything on the internet about it, but I did find an article that was published shortly after the attack took place, in which the incident was immediately speculated to be related to Chaim Weiss:

Newsday (Melville, NY)
January 22, 1987
Edition: NASSAU AND SUFFOLK
Section: NEWS
Page: 07

Topics:
Index Terms:
MURDER.ATTEMPTS.ASSAULT.AGED.CRIME.NASSAU COUNTY.LONG BEACH.JEWS.SCHOOL.STUDENT.

Intruder Beats Retired L. Beach Man

Author: Bill Van Haintze and Patrick Brasley
Article Text:

An intruder broke into the studio apartment of a Long Beach retiree and badly beat him on the head and arms with a blunt instrument, Nassau County police said yesterday.

Joseph Meade, 64, a retired New York Telephone Co. employee, was in serious condition last night in Long Beach Memorial Hospital. He had a fractured skull, a fractured forearm, broken hands and other body injures.
The beating occurred less than six blocks from Mesivta of Long Beach, the yeshiva where 15-year-old Chaim Weiss of Staten Island was killed in his room Nov. 1 by an unknown intruder who hit him on the head with a sharp metal object.

Det. Sgt. Everitt Campbell, acting commander of the Nassau Homicide Squad, said county and Long Beach detectives are attempting to find a link between the two crimes, but no such connection has been made so far.
He said that Meade, who was separated, lived alone in the one-room apartment. Neighbors describe Meade as a quiet, athletic man who frequently rides his bicycle through the streets of Long Beach and as far as Hempstead. They said he runs in marathons and regularly plays racquetball.
Campbell described Meade's injuries as "defensive," saying it appeared that Meade was trying to protect himself against blows from a blunt instrument.

The weapon was not found.

Campbell gave this account:

John Hopkins, 30, who lives in a second-floor apartment in the five-unit building at 454 E. Broadway, was working on his car about 10:15 a.m. yesterday in a driveway next to Meade's ground-floor apartment.
Hopkins said he heard Meade's phone ringing continuously. He looked in a window and saw Meade in a T-shirt and sweat pants, sprawled on the bed. Hopkins entered through a partly open door and saw bloodstains on Meade's clothes and bedding. He called police.

Campbell said Meade might have surprised a burglar, and the "burglary [might have] escalated into a robbery."

Campbell said Meade was separated from his wife, Margaret of Carle Place. He said the couple has three grown children, two sons and a daughter.

Copyright (c) 1987 Newsday, Inc.
Record Number: 1028112517

The takeaway from this goes in two directions in my mind, with respect to Chaim Weiss:

1. On the one hand, a motive of a possible single serial murderer - racial hatred - seems contradicted by this crime, in that I doubt "Joseph Meade" was Jewish. It's an assumption, but based on his name, and his estranged wife's name (Margaret), it just doesn't seem likely. Not only that, but Joseph Meade, as far as I can tell, was not killed.

2. On the other hand, as with the murder of Chaim Weiss, no weapon was found, but, as from the article posted by RebZissel, it appears to have been of a similar sort. And it happened only blocks away.

So, I bought one more article, and this one I think sheds a bit more light on the situation initially described in RebZissel's article. His article refers directly to Joseph Meade and Chaim Weiss, and is vague about other attacks. This one gives some more details about those others:

Newsday (Melville, NY)
February 15, 1987
Edition: NASSAU AND SUFFOLK
Section: NEWS
Page: 21

Topics:
Index Terms:
LONG BEACH.JEWS.DISCRIMINATION.CRIME.AGED.POLICE.INVESTIGATION.
A VIEW FROM LONG BEACH
Attacks Lead to Change in Routines
Author: Cope Moyers
Article Text:

Retired school principal Florence Sukoff is convinced the crimes in her neighborhood are motivated by a religious hatred.

"It's someone evil against the Jews," she said, walking back to her oceanfront apartment in Long Beach. "There's a fear, no doubt."
Shirley Fitzsimmons, the manager of one of the former oceanfront hotels that have been the scene of two attacks against residents, is sure the crimes are being done by one person, because "the victims are being beaten around the head."

And though there are as many theories as there are strollers on the boardwalk, one thing remains clear: Both residents and police have more questions than answers.

"People really don't know what's happening, and they're hearing crazy stories that seem to be getting crazier as it goes on," said Long Beach Supervisor Bruce Nyman.

What is certain is that the violence began with a series of brutal attacks last year against five elderly residents with apartments in former Long Beach hotels.

Soon it spread to a nearby yeshiva, where Chaim Weiss, 15, was killed by being repeatedly struck with a hatchet-type weapon as he slept in his dormitory room.

And recently, a 64-year-old retired man was severely beaten by an intruder in his apartment near the ocean.

The only links in these attacks so far, police say, is that they are unsolved and that they occurred in Long Beach. That, however, has not squelched the rumors sweeping the neighborhood along the oceanfront that one person is stalking both young and elderly victims who live there. The talk has caused residents, particularly the elderly, to alter daily routines. Some say they now fear living alone or walking the few blocks to stores.

"We're vulnerable to these stories because we don't know what to do or what to believe," said Abraham Moscowitz, 79, a retired bus driver who lives in a seaside building for the elderly and no longer walks along the boardwalk unless it's with friends. "You hear there's a mass killer on the loose, or at least somebody who attacks people like me."

The elderly are not alone in their concern.

"The bottom line is it just gives you something to think about," said George Monahan, a retired New York City police officer in his 40s who lives on Broadway. "You figure it's not going to happen to you, but you wonder."
The rumors also have many residents believing that Long Beach police are incapable of solving the string of crimes.

"There's a lot of talking and not enough investigating," said Lena Hodos, a 27-year resident of Long Beach. "We want results."

While denying such charges, city officials admit that the rumors and residents' attitudes are having an impact on the city police department. Officers say the gossip is an unnecessary burden on a department doing its best to find suspects.

"What happens in a time like this, when people are worried or scared, you look for scapegoats," said Long Beach City Manager Ed Eaton. "The police department is there to lash out at. It doesn't matter that police are working hard."

Already this fiscal year, Eaton said, the city has spent $240,000 for police overtime. The city has budgeted $305,000 in overtime for the entire fiscal year ending June 30.

The strain is showing. There has been a complaint by the local Policeman's Benevolent Association that several uniformed officers have been required to work unnecessarily long hours in plainclothes on the cases. And, according to city sources, some officials have openly questioned police department tactics during closed-door meetings.

Long Beach Lt. Joseph Morrison admits that the department has few leads in the six assault cases that caused serious injuries, but no deaths, among elderly victims between last May and August. Though he did not specify, he said that he believes that those attacks were sexually motivated.
Morrison and Nassau County police, who joined the investigation after the yeshiva murder Nov. 1, don't believe the murder is connected with the assaults in the former hotels. But like those assaults, there is so little evidence in the Weiss murder that "if you took out all the paperwork and just kept the evidence, you'd have an empty folder," according to a Nassau detective closely involved in the case.

"We keep an open mind on all these cases and look to see if there's anything to tie them together," Morrison said. "We haven't found anything."
The same is true in the investigation of the beating of Joseph Meade, 64, a retired New York Telephone Co. employee. He was severely beaten Jan. 22 at his home, not far from where the hotel assaults occurred. Police believe burglary was the motive because some property was taken, and for that reason don't think it is connected with the other cases.

Even if the violence is not related, one person thinks it is enough to suggest that the neighborhood is not as safe as people would like to think.
Anton Weiss, whose son was murdered in his dormitory, said that had he known about the assaults on elderly residents last year, he would have acted to protect his son.

"If I'd have known about the crimes, I wouldn't have put my son there," said Weiss, of Staten Island. "We always thought the area was nice, conducive to study and a place where my son could learn. Now I realize we should have taken precautions."
Copyright (c) 1987 Newsday, Inc.
Record Number: 1027719198

Clearly, authorities with access are skeptical that there is one person behind these crimes, as I believe they should be. There were not 7 murders; there was 1. Five of the crimes appeared to have a sexual motivation, and were committed against victims who shared a general profile: they were elderly and lived in former Long Beach hotels converted to apartment buildings. One was committed against an elderly man, but robbery, rather than sexul assault, appeared to be the motive. And one was committed against a young boy, living in a school dormitory, where no motive was immediately discoverable. He was the only one killed.

Doesn't sound like the work of one criminal to me.

Indeed, the most recently published material about Chaim Weiss, from May of this year about his case being re-opened, seems to hint strongly that the investigating authorities have reason to believe someone from the school does know more than he is telling.

Sorry for the marathon post!

Hmm...according to the comments section on this (http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/05/chaim-weiss-murder-reward-for-info.html) blog post, some guy says his cousin claimed it was "well known that it was a Russian mob hit." I've heard a lot of theories about it on here (fascinating and sad case), but...this is one of the most interesting. I guess the hitman/assassin could have been trained to set up the traditions found at the murder scene. But why the hell would there be a hit on Chaim, of all people?

This case has always really bothered me, mainly due to the lack of suspects or motives. I think it's only really possible one of the students (or maybe even rabbis did it), but that doesn't seem likely, either. So weird.

Hmm...according to the comments section on this (http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/05/chaim-weiss-murder-reward-for-info.html) blog post, some guy says his cousin claimed it was "well known that it was a Russian mob hit." I've heard a lot of theories about it on here (fascinating and sad case), but...this is one of the most interesting. I guess the hitman/assassin could have been trained to set up the traditions found at the murder scene. But why the hell would there be a hit on Chaim, of all people?

This case has always really bothered me, mainly due to the lack of suspects or motives. I think it's only really possible one of the students (or maybe even rabbis did it), but that doesn't seem likely, either. So weird.

The only thing that comes to mind is that I think I recall once reading that Anton Weiss was quite a successful businessman. I don't know what kind of business that was or who his associates may have been, but perhaps a hitman could have targeted Anton's child to "get" to him.

I take the information with a huge grain of salt, however.

So, I spent a good portion of yesterday re-reading much of this thread, in particular all of RebZissel's post. First of all, Reb, I'd like to thank you for your contributions here... you obviously know some folks who have more intimate knowledge of what went on than can be gleaned from newspapers/the segment, and I think your knowledge of the specifics of the case coupled with your knowledge of yeshiva life and Orthodox Jewish practices really helped to shed a lot of light on this case for our forum.

I used to be fairly convinced that someone inside the yeshiva was responsible, and I basically always thought it was a student, but I've really come around on that quite a bit. I'm sorry if someone else raised this elsewhere in the thread and I simply missed it, but, as I think about it, the number one thing that points to an outsider to me - or at the very least someone who was NOT a student - is the fact that the murder weapon was missing, and presumably the authorities found no bloody clothes of the killer (which there would almost certainly had to have been) on the premises. How would a student dispose of these items so effectively that they would never be found? A student would have had to acquire the weapon (where did he get it?), commit the murder, leave the yeshiva, dump all incriminating evidence, and return to the yeshiva without being detected. It just doesn't seem feasible.

One question I do have, pursuant to this notion, is this: what kind of access were authorities given to student rooms/belongings in the immediate aftermath of the murder? Were they able to search every room immediately? If they were, than the situation I describe above - a student leaving the yeshiva to dispose of incriminating evidence, then returning without detection - would basically have HAD to transpire if a student was indeed the killer, and furthermore it would have to have not been obvious to investigators, when searching student rooms, that any particular student had clothing missing. I don't know what the wardrobe requirements of a yeshiva are, or how many "outfits" any given student might have on hand, but every Orthodox Jewish student I have ever seen in my travels seems to be wearing something that might be fairly called a "uniform" of all black. If this yeshiva did have a uniform requirement, and students only had so many items available to them, it might be conspicuous if a particular student had fewer items than everyone else, because something was missing. But evidently nothing like this came up, which again leads me to suspect the authorities never found anything that would indicate any student either had bloody clothes in his possession or had attempted to dispose of items of clothing.

If the authorities, on the other hand, were NOT given immediate permission to search rooms, it becomes possible that a student might have been able to hide bloody clothes and a weapon in his room for a day or two, perhaps in with some laundry, until he had a chance to leave the yeshiva under some "legitimate" pretext to then dispose of them. This is why I wonder about what kind of access the authorities had to student rooms in the immediate aftermath of the murder.

A couple of other observations, about the moving of the body:

1. It seems that it has always been assumed, even by the FBI, that whoever did this left Chaim's room and then came back 45 minutes or more later, at which time Chaim's body was moved half on to the floor:

the FBI report postulates:

"In all probability, the offender would have had to have been close enough to know that Weiss' body had not been discovered before returning to the scene . . . Upon re-entry, the assailant found the room dark and raised the shade to provide additional light . . . Weiss' body was moved by the assailant, either to provide easier access to the window and shade or for the assailant to look under the body for anything incriminating left there. The window may have been opened by the assailant to discard some item which he later retrieved."

I think this has always been one of the more remarkable and difficult aspects of the case, in particular with respect to an outside intruder theory. It's one thing to go in once, undetected, and commit a murder. It's another to go back, when you've already gotten away once, to a building full of people, any one of whom may wake up. It suggests, if it indeed happened, that whatever the perpetrator was going back for must have been of incredible significance. I'll get to that in a moment.

For now, I want to ask the question: are we sure the perpetrator really left and went back? What if he simply never left at all?

Pardon what I am about to write, in that it will ask people to focus on the gruesome reality of the deed, but consider for a moment: if you approach someone who is lying on a bed and then hit them - hard - 12 times with a sharpened object in the head, it's going to make some noise. Not a *lot* of noise, but not *no* noise either. One's sense of the amount of noise made is likely to be quite exaggerated if you are the one doing it - your body can be fooled by vibrations in your arm from the instrument as it strikes its target, from the ruffled noise of your own clothing as you swing your arms, and the sound of the impact of the instrument hitting bone and flesh when you are standing right next to it. The point is: even if the noise produced would not be enough for someone outside the room to hear it, it's easy enough to understand how the perpetrator's perception of the noise might lead the perpetrator to conclude that what transpired was louder than it really was.

So suppose the killer finishes his blows, then tries to calm himself for a few moments, and listens for any noise. Maybe someone gets up to use the bathroom. Maybe in his excited state he THINKS he hears a noise in the hall outside. In any event, for whatever reason, he decides not to leave immediately. Indeed, what if...

2. The killer knows, in the heat of his action, he has lost something... but it's too dark to find it? We know Chaim was last seen at 1AM, and that he was found around 7:45AM. It's safe to assume, I would think, that the killer had to be gone for good by 7 at the latest, as people were clearly starting to wake up around then. So the murder happens some time between 1 and let's say 6. If the killer entered Chaim's room while it was still dark outside, then closed the door behind him (which would only make sense) while he committed the attack, and he did so any time before about 6, it would have been awfully dark. Now imagine that, somehow, he knows, in the attack, he knows he's lost something. He can't open the door for the hall light because someone could potentially wake up and see him in with Chaim. What can he do? As the FBI suggests, he can raise the shade, but until 6ish that won't help. So, what I am suggesting is that rather than leaving and coming back, perhaps the killer waited in the room for 45 minutes after killing Chaim because he was waiting for there to be enough light to look for whatever it was that he'd lost. When he can't find it right away, he panics, and move Chaim's body to the floor, and presumably finds whatever it was, and then exits. This makes a lot more sense to me than the idea of someone entering to kill Chaim, leaving, and then returning, particularly if we are talking about someone from outside the institution.

3. But the whole notion that the body was moved at all in a search for something the killer left behind, while totally logical, is troubling, particularly for the "outsider" theory. If it was someone who was truly a random intruder, what could he possibly leave behind that would be worth returning for or hanging around for? If he has no other association with the school and the act is truly random, it's exceedingly unlikely he could have left behind anything that would make his identity obvious. If it was someone who was no longer associated with the school but who once attended it or worked at it, that makes more sense, and I think that is the direction RebZissel has continually leaned toward, which is fair enough and makes a fair bit of sense. However, I would think the *most* likely person to be easily identified by something left behind would be someone who had some current association with the school - a current student, current faculty member, or current staffer.

4. In general, why would anyone hang around for 45 minutes, or return 45 minutes later, to a murder scene to look around the crime scene in a general way? What I am getting at is: this seems to me not to be a situation where someone is just doing due diligence, hanging around a crime scene or returning to one to make sure s/he hasn't left any trace evidence, but rather someone who is purposefully searching for something specific - something s/he either KNOWS he's lost or believes that Chaim has had all along (which is why Chaim was killed in the first place?). I think the second of these two possibilities is a little far-fetched, without any evidence to suggest what Chaim could possibly have, so let's think about the first one.

What exactly could the killer have lost in Chaim's bedclothes that would get so entangled that it would require him to move Chaim's body to find it? I don't think it could have been the murder weapon - that had to be relatively large and easy to find, and anyhow how could it have gotten *underneath* Chaim, if it was still in the killer's hand (as it must have been) as he delivered the final blow?

If not the weapon, what else could it have been? I don't think this is a trivial question, when you consider it. If you imagine the killer approaching Chaim's bed, then leaning over slight to deliver blows, the openings to the front pockets of his pants would have been pointed out and away from the bed, toward the door. If something, like say his wallet, had been jarred out of the front pocket as he jerked his body to swing his weapon at Chaim, it likely would have fallen on the floor either behind him or directly next to the bed... not underneath Chaim.

So what else could we be talking about here? It occurs to me that something in someone's shirt pocket... like a pen or pencil, or anything really, might easily come out of the shirt as the killer swings his weapon over and over, and that anything falling out of such a pocket would fall on to the bed, and could get pretty lost.

5. Although I do believe the killer, in order of likelihood, was (1) from outside the school, or (2) an adult with a current association with the school, and then only lastly (3) a current student of the school, I want to return to the question of sexual activity. Obviously, there's been a lot of debate about whether any kind of homosexual activity could have been going on between the boys. RebZissel and others have expressed doubts. I still say it's possible. Anecdotally, I am a Catholic, and in high school I had a good friend who entered a Catholic seminary straight out of high school, and he was gay. He used to describe to me, in great detail, all the sexual activity that transpired between seminarians. These were boys aged 17-22 (the college part of seminary). Now, the situation is different - these boys were older, to a larger degree self-selecting, and entering a life of supposed eternal celibacy, which is quite different from attending an all-boys school for a few years at what is perhaps the behest of your parents, but knowing that, when it was over, you can go ahead and get married and have a normal life. Having said that, these guys in the Catholic seminary weren't "supposed" to be having any kind of relations with one another, they were being drilled in orthodox Catholic morality on a daily basis which is just as restrictive on sexual practices as orthodox Jewish morality, and yet it was happening, and without the direct knowledge of staff, because if staff had known they would have been expelled.

When you put young people together in tight living quarters, if they have the will - and I'm sure most yeshiva students do NOT have it, but IF they have it - they will find a way, and if they *need* to keep it a secret, they'll do that too.

I also wonder if it's possible, since, as RebZissel has constantly reminded us, that these were "normal teenage boys" who might "drink beer," for example (Reb's words), if one or more of them might not have managed to sneak in a girl from time to time... including Chaim.

And I wonder this because... what could the killer be looking for in the bed, that he would expect to find *under* Chaim, that might be incriminating to him (or her) specifically? I mean, it is a bed we are talking about. Underwear? Prophylactics?

The coroner was clear that Chaim was not "sexually assaulted." I'll take this to mean there was no evidence he had engaged in sexual activity that night, so what I am suggesting becomes a fairly remote possibility. But it must be said that ruling out sexual assault does not necessarily rule out evidence of sexual activity, either from that night, or prior nights.

My friend told me that there is the belief that this man came back to get revenge.


Do you mean that he came back after he was fired, or that he came back after he went home to Poland? Because that is a long way and kind of an expensive trip just to randomly kill a student for "revenge."

Thank you; that makes more sense. I agree that it definitely seems like some kind of inside job.

Had a disc in last night and this case was on it. It's a shame that two years on after the re-opening, nothing new seems to have surfaced. It looks more and more like we will never know what happened that night.

Seeing the case last night of course prompted me to bum around the internet to see what new was out there. Basically "nothing" was the answer - not since the re-opening - but one thing I looked at that I hadn't before has me wondering a bit about some of the discussion in this thread. on the forbidden site you can see the news coverage from the day it was re-opened almost two years ago, with Anton Weiss, several members of the Orthodox community (family of Chaim's? officials from the school? They are in the background and unidentified). While these people are there, present, in the background but obviously there to participate in this event, the current detective assigned to the case, Detective John Azzata, gets up and repeats this idea about the open window being a sign that the killer may have had knowledge of the religion.

What has me stumped is this: if this is as wrong as several of the posters on this board who claim knowledge of Orthodox faith say it is - to the point that I think most of (including myself) have now taken the idea that this is wrong for gospel - why is this detective up there saying this IN FRONT OF a bunch of Orthodox Jews? Why would no one correct him, either right then or there or afterward, so that the police could back away from that idea/position? This is something that Anton and school officials must have heard now for years, and these detectives obviously got this idea from somewhere.

Maybe this isn't as wrong of an idea as some have suggested?

I don't know, I am totally unfamiliar with Orthodox Jewish practices, but it seems to me that these detectives would not simply have made this up, there source must have been someone who was Jewish and thought this could be the case, particularly since they keep repeating it, and evidently no one is correcting them.

Recently re-watched this segment, and went back and have been reading through the thread and I saw this excellent post I'd like to comment on.

I would like to reiterate 15 points about the Chaim Weiss case:

1. The second yahrzeit candle meant absolutely nothing. It was a token of respect. Someone placed it there and forgot. I think this was more of an effort by Law Enforcement to connect dots when nothing of substance could be found.

I agree. I've always assumed that a Rabbi or another student placed it in there and either forgot about it, or was fearful of admitting that they did it because they essentially "disturbed" a crime scene. The UM segment makes it seem like the police sealed off his room after the first candle was lit. If a student placed the candle in there, he may have been fearful of getting in trouble with the police or the school. This was always a red herring in the case, IMO.

2. An open window means very little. It has very little to do with this crime. There is no religious significance behind it.

I agree. As others who have known Chaim or have actually went to the school have noted, the heat was unbearable at times in the rooms so opening a window would mean nothing. I do this sometimes at my house because my heating system's ventilation runs directly into my bedroom.

3. Chaim was found partially on the floor. Yes, there is a custom in some strands of Chasidic Judaism and depending what country you're in this also exists in Haredi Judaism. Chaim was dragged off his bed. He wasn't delicately placed there. I have been to Orthodox Jewish funerals where the body is in a normal casket and not on the floor. Chaim was not placed this way to honor his soul.

This was an obvious part in the segment where the detective seemed to be reaching. I never once thought he was placed on the floor to "honor" him. The killer was obviously looking for something in that dark room.

4. Students stayed up late and would go to the boardwalk. The mysterious yeshiva student on the boardwalk could have been anyone.

This is interesting. Because in a prior post, mozartpc27 had said how unlikely it was that a student would have been able to leave the dorm to ditch the murder weapon (and possible bloody clothing) without someone noticing or hearing the student leave or return. But if a door was in fact broken, and students did stay up late and go for walks on the boardwalk, I don't see how it would be out of the realm of possibility that a student could have left after murdering Chaim and ditched some incriminating evidence.

With that being said, I don't think there was any significance with the jogger's sighting. He wasn't even sure if the boy he saw was Jewish. It literally could have been anyone.

5. The Long Beach Police Department and The Nassau County Police Department would not allow the FBI to investigate during the first three weeks. This was a mistake in my opinion. There were rivalries within the Law Enforcement Community.

I agree.

6. I have asked about Chaim's "sharp tongue" and his classmates do not remember him this way. They said he was a normal kid. He didn't stand out in any way at all.

The UM segment says he was top of his class and well liked by his peers. This doesn't fit with the "sharp tongue" description at all.

7. If a Rabbi or faculty member had been abusing someone, there is absolutely no creed or religious law that prevents reporting this. It is a crime and a sin to allow something like that to go on. Rabbis are taken on if they are doing something wrong, so I hope you all know that no one would keep his or her mouth shut.

I don't think this has anything to do with the case, but it wouldn't be the first time something got covered up within a religious facility.

But according to the UM segment and some other articles, virtually every current employee (including the Rabbis) were polygraphed and the police came up with nothing. That is pretty telling. Usually you would expect at least one "deceptive" answer that piques the investigator's interest into a potential suspect, but with this case, there was nothing like that. I don't believe that any of the Rabbis or current staff were involved.

8. I got into a verbal war with a girl on here because I rejected the assertion that Chaim may have been a homosexual and this was the result of a gay relationship suddenly erupting or ending. I have no idea, BUT

I strongly believe that it is highly implausible for something like that to go on without anyone noticing. Students would have noticed. I am not convinced that this was the result of homosexual experimentation.

I don't think the motive in Chaim's murder was sexual in nature at all.

9. There were other suspects. I have mentioned the deranged, disgruntled Polish janitor who left abruptly and joined the military. My friend vividly remembers his fierce temper nearly 30 years later. He is a strong suspect in my opinion.

But this guy had an alibi at an army base, IIRC? That would seem to be much, much harder to slip away from an army base and come back undetected without a single person noticing their absence or re-emergence. Plus the guy went from being a janitor at a school to the US army...I don't see how that would merit this deep seeded hatred were he would want to return to the school to murder one student in the middle of the night.

10. The school and students did cooperate every step of the way. The detectives wanted to solved this case but resorted to blaming others because of the lack of progress.

This actually makes a lot of sense. Didn't even think about it when watching the UM segment.

11. There was some anti-semitic, hate-motivated activity by Long Beach residents.

This may be true, but that's a huge leap from hate-motivated anti-Semitic vandalism to murdering a 15 year old boy.

12. It was also Halloween. Think of the 1978 movie by that title and the Michael Myers character. A nutcase may have been influenced by that.

But this would mean that whoever killed Chaim was unknown to the school and the building. Except for the student who claims to have been awaken by someone opening and shutting his bedroom door, no one else reported anything closely resembling someone checking out the rooms. I find it nearly impossible that a random nutjob would have found Chaim's room on the second try and killed him for no apparent reason.

13. The building was insecure. Anyone could have entered it.

This also means anyone could have exited it after murdering Chaim and then returned undetected.

14. Chaim's room as I have mentioned before was unsafe because two entrances existed that the killer could have used.

But why Chaim exactly? Why would an ex-employee or random nutjob stumble onto Chaim's room and murder him? Chaim wouldn't have been responsible for an ex-employee losing their job, so why murder him? Same thing with a random nutjob, why target the dormitory at all? The UM segment states that Chaim was seen reading in the hallway past 1 in the morning, and that this was normal for the students to read in the hallway because of the religious custom of not using lights in their rooms. So if it was normal for the students to read late into the night and early morning in the hallways, I don't see how a random nutjob would have been lucky enough to strike at a time when all of the students were asleep and in their rooms. It definitely seems like whoever killed him knew the precise time to do it.

15. 12 stabs to the head that obliterated the top half of his head would indicated extreme rage and a revenge motive. It was not one stab to the head, but 12.

I agree.

All things considered, after reading some of the more recent posts in this thread and rewatching the UM segment, I'm more inclined to believe one of the students was responsible. It fits the known evidence and even some of the speculated evidence. Consider:

-Chaim's killer was alleged to have returned to his room 45 minutes after initially killing him. Who else could do this with ease and not be detected by anyone in the building? A student.
-A random killer wouldn't have had the luck to easily find Chaim's room, and not to mention find the student who was one of two who didn't have a roommate. Whoever killed Chaim knew he would be in that room alone.
-The staff (over 40, IIRC mentioned in the UM segment) all took polygraphs and this led the investigation nowhere. Besides the staff, who else would know the layout of the building and the fact that Chaim would be alone? A student.
-Chaim was targeted for a reason. The 12 blows to his head shows a deep seeded hatred and some type of rage killing. I don't see how an ex-employee or a random intruder would take their rage out on a 15 year old boy. The students, according to the UM segment, spent most of their time and interactions with each other. It would make more sense for a student to have felt wronged or to have had some sort of gripe with Chaim than it would for a Rabbi or employee of the school. Considering he was at the top of his class, it wouldn't be the first time something like that has caused resentment amongst students.

ETA: Just thought of something. Perhaps the open window does hold some significance after all? The crime scene was described as very bloody, yet no blood was found outside of Chaim's room. So, let's assume for a second that after Chaim was murdered, his killer was covered in his blood. The killer, if he were a student and I think this is the most likely, would have had ample time and opportunity to wait to see if anyone woke up, and then remove their bloody clothing and toss it out the window. Then they could have went back to their own room and changed/cleaned up, and then exited the building and retrieved the bloody clothing and then disposed of them. This would also fit perfectly with the investigation's theory that the killer returned to the room at some point after Chaim was murdered...the killer left something incriminating at the crime scene. They return, move Chaim's body, and retrieve what they were after and then leave the scene undetected again. Now, there is one problem with this scenario: if the killer did return to the scene to grab something he left and had to move Chaim's body to do so, wouldn't this run the risk of getting blood all over him again? However, we don't know how long the time had elapsed between Chaim's murder and the time the killer returned to the scene. The blood could have been near dried or dried at that point.

And forgive me if this seems impolite, but according to Unsolved Mysteries, Chaim was killed by a single blow to his head, other articles state he was stabbed repeatedly...so which is it? Is it possible that UM got the information from the authorities (who seem to have cooperated with the segment since the lead detective appeared on camera) and that this "stabbed repeatedly" stuff was borne from gossip and innuendo from within the school? Possible, I suppose. And I also think that could be where the fired Polish janitor "boogeyman" theory came from. It was too horrifying to believe that a member of the yeshiva committed the crime, so naturally, a "boogeyman" was blamed. The same thing with the theory posted earlier in this thread about a vagrant who was angered (after seeking refuge in the dormitory) about being kicked out once the students returned from their break. On the surface, they seem believable to a degree. But when you dig deeper, both of these seem nearly impossible to believe, IMO. The ex-janitor, as stated previously, had an alibi. He was on a military base. That's about as close to a perfect alibi as one could get. No one is going to leave a military base without someone seeing them and at the very least having a conversation with them. It's impossible. Now the evicted vagrant...if he was so angered about being thrown out (after living there for 2 weeks), why return and murder Chaim? Why would this guy target Chaim? How would he know which room he was sleeping in? How did he know Chaim didn't have a roommate? I could go on and on. Both theories seem highly unlikely. It had to be someone from within that school.

Good point! I would also think a soldier would have to sign off if he was going to leave the base for a couple of hours and show his military ID to the guard when leaving the base.

And I also think that could be where the fired Polish janitor "boogeyman" theory came from. It was too horrifying to believe that a member of the yeshiva committed the crime, so naturally, a "boogeyman" was blamed. The same thing with the theory posted earlier in this thread about a vagrant who was angered (after seeking refuge in the dormitory) about being kicked out once the students returned from their break. On the surface, they seem believable to a degree. But when you dig deeper, both of these seem nearly impossible to believe, IMO.


...It had to be someone from within that school.

I 100% agree with you. All ethnic and religious stereotypes and misunderstandings aside (and there is not one shred of me that doesn't think that is where that "boogeyman" theory ultimately has its roots, unfortunately), it's just plain unlikely. To tell you the truth, I'm ready for it to go the way of "Rob did it".

I would also think a soldier would have to sign off if he was going to leave the base for a couple of hours and show his military ID to the guard when leaving the base.

There would definitely be a record of his either coming or going from post, that is for certain.

Also, it appears that this was the work of an inexperienced killer. UM states that Chaim was killed by a single blow to the head, which would seem to coincide with the "stabbed multiple times" reports from newspapers. He was killed instantly by the first blow, and then stabbed repeatedly after dying. That seems to be the work of someone who had zero experience with murder. And the killer returned to the scene 45 minutes or more after murdering Chaim.

Also, it appears that this was the work of an inexperienced killer. UM states that Chaim was killed by a single blow to the head, which would seem to coincide with the "stabbed multiple times" reports from newspapers. He was killed instantly by the first blow, and then stabbed repeatedly after dying. That seems to be the work of someone who had zero experience with murder. And the killer returned to the scene 45 minutes or more after murdering Chaim.

I think UM either whitewashed it for television, or withheld the info as an item to test tipsters; but either way, the print sources are clear: although the first blow was sufficient to be fatal, Chaim was struck multiple times.

Also, the number of lie detector tests being 40 referred to the number of students put to the test, not staff. The segment said "over forty" students were tested; a poster here who claimed to have attended the school at the time said that in fact all students were tested (since we don't know how many students were in the Yeshiva at the time, it's hard to say how accurate the UM segment is or isn't with that number).

I think UM either whitewashed it for television, or withheld the info as an item to test tipsters; but either way, the print sources are clear: although the first blow was sufficient to be fatal, Chaim was struck multiple times.

Also, the number of lie detector tests being 40 referred to the number of students put to the test, not staff. The segment said "over forty" students were tested; a poster here who claimed to have attended the school at the time said that in fact all students were tested (since we don't know how many students were in the Yeshiva at the time, it's hard to say how accurate the UM segment is or isn't with that number).

I missed that detail in the segment.

UM says 40 students and "most" of the teachers and rabbis were polygraphed. But I've read other articles that says "virtually all" of the staff was polygraphed and cleared, and that several students were "uncooperative" or were not allowed (by their parents) to take the polygraphs. Granted, print sources are notorious for mixing up information and getting things wrong, but I would think that UM would have mentioned whether or not the entire student body was polygraphed and cleared. There had to be some hold outs.

The reason I say that is that the police were desperate to find whoever that jogger saw on the boardwalk that morning that Chaim's body was found. I know we on here have posited that this was probably a red herring and could have been anyone on the boardwalk that morning, but the police, knowing a lot more than we do, seemed desperate enough to try and locate him. For all we know the jogger gave a detailed description of what the boy was wearing, or some other pertinent detail that made the police believe the boy belonged to the school. Think about it: if the boy was id'ed and he WAS a member of the school, this boy would become a pretty significant person of interest in the case. Obviously, the boy could have simply went out early and wanted to have some alone time on the boardwalk and was totally innocent. But the timing of the sighting coupled with the time that Chaim's body was found would have given police some suspicions.

I also find it interesting that Chaim's father and police during the recent reopening of the investigation had pleaded with the former students to come forward with information they may have previously been fearful of coming forward with.

ETA: Just thought of something. Perhaps the open window does hold some significance after all? The crime scene was described as very bloody, yet no blood was found outside of Chaim's room. So, let's assume for a second that after Chaim was murdered, his killer was covered in his blood. The killer, if he were a student and I think this is the most likely, would have had ample time and opportunity to wait to see if anyone woke up, and then remove their bloody clothing and toss it out the window. Then they could have went back to their own room and changed/cleaned up, and then exited the building and retrieved the bloody clothing and then disposed of them. This would also fit perfectly with the investigation's theory that the killer returned to the room at some point after Chaim was murdered...the killer left something incriminating at the crime scene. They return, move Chaim's body, and retrieve what they were after and then leave the scene undetected again. Now, there is one problem with this scenario: if the killer did return to the scene to grab something he left and had to move Chaim's body to do so, wouldn't this run the risk of getting blood all over him again? However, we don't know how long the time had elapsed between Chaim's murder and the time the killer returned to the scene. The blood could have been near dried or dried at that point.


The only problem that I have with this theory is that the murder occurred during Shabbos. If the killer was indeed a student and was covered in Chaim's blood, then he would need to take a shower to rinse off all the blood. There is almost no chance that no one would have heard someone taking a shower in the middle of the night.

If you guys go to the popular video website and type in "Police Seek Clues In Jewish Student Chaim Weiss 1986 Murder", it shows a recent public plea for help by Anton Weiss and LE. There is some rare footage of the dormitory include an outside view of Chaim's room, the infamous door lock and the distance from his window to the ground. You can also see the area that he and other boys would sit in outside of his window as mentioned by other posters.

In this footage, Anton Weiss is standing alongside LE officials so any prior issues he had with them must have been put to rest. Also, one LE officials again mentions the window being opened signifying the soul leaving the room. With Anton Weiss right there, it seems as though he may believe this to possibly be a clue as well and not brushed aside. Very interesting.

Now let's put this in perspective: the killer left the room after killing Chaim and when he returned he didn't delicately place him on the floor. The crime scene was something you'd see in a horror movie. He came back to make sure nothing could lead back to him, so he moved him.

Reb, I don't know if you are still out there and I apologize for digging this old quote up but I believe you hit on an important point here in that the scene was terribly gruesome. My question is, if the scene was so gruesome (and I do believe you that it was), how did he manage to now leave any footprints behind? There would seemingly be blood EVERYWHERE.

I apologize for not responding sooner. I have become a Senior Diplomat and now live in our nation's capital.

Congratulations!

Thank you, Wishfuldreamer. I hope you are doing well in your current profession.

Yes, I have not been able to go on here because of how demanding my position is in addition to having a staff to supervise and a portfolio full of international issues.

So Hambone - I hope you understand why it took this long to respond. Being a Senior Diplomat is time consuming.

Hambone brought up excellent points about this case as did a few others.

I have not been in touch with my friend who went to school with Chaim. Incidentally, I live near him now, but I do not believe I will discuss this with him again. It's just strange to keep bringing up his murdered classmate from almost 30 years ago.

Last time he and I spoke I did mention the Polish suspect, but he opined that except for an explosive temper - nothing seemed to connect him to Chaim or even the school. He said his reason of being angry can be no different from any other employee. There were other employees and they could be considered suspects just as easily as the irate Polish janitor according to my friend.

Also - I believe I should mention that the irate Polish janitor did have an alibi. On the night of the murder he was serving a shift and the base was so far that he would have needed to fly back to Long Beach. Making the possibility that he did it implausible according to my friend. How accurate is this? I don't know. These are things that I heard from my friend that he heard from his friends.

I won't ask him any further questions. It would just be strange now. Chaim Weiss is dead and no one has the faintest clue why or by whom he was killed.

A real unsolved mystery.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Last week, I read this entire thread and found your posts insightful.

I feel like, initially, the police withheld a lot of information from the public on purpose and for good reason. Problem I have now is, here we are 30 years later and they are no closer to solving this now as they were back then.

Also, did you find it interesting that a few years back, when the police held the news conference announcing they were re-opening the case and asking for help, that Anton Weiss was there with them, supporting them? After all, he did sue them after the murder occurred.

I believe he sued the school for being negligent by not informing parents that two similar stabbing murders occurred during the summer of 1986.

There were many stabbing deaths that occurred in Long Beach. Possible serial killer? Some have disputed this, but I believe it is possible.

That's a bit of a reach on Anton's part, IMO.

What happened with the lawsuit?

The Nassau County Coroner unequivocally stated that Chaim Weiss was stabbed in the head with a large knife 12 times in a frenzied style rage. This is an established fact.

This would seemingly rule out the possibility of a random intruder. Seems like a very personal rage killing.

Wow I didn't know that. Sounds to me it could have been a fellow student then.

... with my new job in D.C. ...

Congrats!

Yeah, the savage tone to the killing makes me think he knew his killer. Creepiest scene in the segment, the unknown lit candle in Chaim's room after the murder. Creepy.

The story is back in the news (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/investigation-continues-1986-halloween-murder-article-1.2417285).

The story is back in the news (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/investigation-continues-1986-halloween-murder-article-1.2417285).

Well, that article is certainly the most forthright I've ever seen or read - and I've tried to see and read them all - about the notion that ts was more than likely an inside job. I wonder what if any new info they have developed that would lead them to reach that conclusion, or whether this is assertion by elimination.

This remains the case I'd most like to see solved.

Very good news that police are still actively searching for the killer of Chaim.

Its probably nothing but looking at the picture of the dorm in that article, plus the ones we've seen in the past, looks nothing like the ones used in the segment. The one in the segment looks enormous but this one looks tiny.

I have several comments:

1: The portrayal of the Yeshiva World through TV
2: They system of the Yeshiva World
3: Girls, Sex and Homosexuality in a Yeshiva Dorm
4: The Chaim Weiss case

1: I grew up in the Yeshiva System and was in a Yeshiva Dormitory for all of H.S. and 7 years of Post H.S. . My children have all gone through the Yeshiva system. So I have more than 30 years of living "in" that world.
Me my friends and relatives simply cackle with peals of laughter when we see how television portrays the Yeshiva life. There has not been one TV or movie episode that got it right.

2: Yeshiva living is not scary, secret or eerie. It is physically open, bright, and sunny for those who are in it. However, having said that, emotionally it is in fact very challenging. It can lead to individual students who don’t get it, are not interested in the lifestyle, are troubled, or are misfits to feel isolated and very lonely. However, that can be said of any school system in the world. The Orthodox religion is very rigid - proudly so, and thus the staff of Yeshivas try and mold the young men in a lifestyle that understands that the rejection of the western values, of the "me" generation, of a life of pursuit of pleasure and materialism is not healthy and not the way of a Torah Jew. That is the stated goal.

Having said that, 90% of right wing yeshiva educators have zero formal training in curriculum, education, child psychology or anything else for that matter. It is a system where the teachers are chosen by giving those who have come up through the system and excelled at Talmud a job. In almost all cases he is a young man in his early 20s who is recently married with one or two children and he needs a job. He is plugged into a class of 14 yr olds (9th graders) to teach Talmud. As this teacher gets older he may or may not get moved up the chain to teach higher grades. This inevitably depends on if the Rosh Hayeshiva (The head Rabbi of the Yeshiva or "Dean") has any sons or sons in laws that need a job. The system of who gets hired and which students get admitted into the best Yeshivas is based on 1) nepotism and 2) if the family has money or not. Those are the only two criteria. The first criteria is not denied by anyone, the second criteria is only admitted off the record as wry self deprecating humor amongst those who at least have the decency to be somewhat embarrassed by the realities of trying to manage a budget solely on the charitable donations of others. (As high as Yeshiva tuition is, it never covers even 50% of the budget and every yeshiva has to raise the rest of the budget on their own).

The older I got and the more exposed to the outside world I became the more it became clear to me that while the teachers are for the most part very well meaning and want to do what is right, they have no business being educators. Most of them are very nice people who do care but simply lack any training. It is analogous to any one of us who is not trained in medicine going to a foreign country and trying to help sick people. We know a little bit, we want to help, we mean well and we would genuinely care, but we would fail in a lot of cases because we simply don’t know what we are doing.

3: Girls in the dorm room. Homosexual element:

As far as a girl being in the dorm. Notwithstanding the antics of boys in dorm rooms that is portrayed on TV, the portrayal in the media that every 14 and 15 year old is somehow more clever than anyone in authority is absurd. I know that "nothing is impossible" but I can tell you that it is in fact impossible for a girl to get into a yeshiva Dorm when the semester is in session. Maybe you can do it once, but never on a regular basis.

No one can get away with anything in the dorms and this fact adds to the pressure and tension the boys feel. Living in a Yeshiva dorm is literally living in a fish bowl. everyone watches everyone else, and everyone is encouraged to tell on his fellow classmates in order to 'save him'. The fact is that these boys are forbidden to talk to anyone of the opposite sex outside of their sisters and cousins. No Yeshiva Rabbi would ever tell you otherwise - nor would they be ashamed in any way. They are also very cognizant that boys of this age have raging hormones and the possibility does exist for some small percentage to experiment with homosexual behavior because they are restricted from any kind of sexual behavior, or contact with the opposite sex at all. Thus, all yeshiva dorm rooms have no locks on them. The boys have no privacy and are well aware that there is nowhere to go within a Yeshiva campus. I believe that besides 3- 5 exceptions, in the US all Yeshiva campuses are on less than 3 acres of property and the rooms are always crowded and are most often just converted Mansions or a series of one family houses converted to dorm rooms. This isn’t to say it doesn’t happen. It does. It’s a rarity - but it does happen, and the staff knows as we all do that adolescence is a confusing time.

As mentioned above, I don’t think they have the professional training or experience to deal with boys who have these issues very well. The standard operating procedure for anyone caught engaging in homosexual activity is immediate expulsion. (Immediate means the same day- boom out the door - I’ve seen it happen with my own eyes when I was a student and when I was an adult involved with a Yeshiva).

Again they mean well and try - but they are working in a system and with a parent body that has zero tolerance for any kind of western romantic influences on their children - and they reject absolutely the politically correct acceptance of behavior that they find abhorrent.

The upshot is that there is not much one can get away with in a Yeshiva Dorm. it was like this in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and today.

4: The case of Chaim Weiss: There is not much more to say on a case that is 23 years old - I think everything that can be said has been said. I just want to point out that the chances of any student actually knowing the laws of how to handle a dead body is almost zero. The laws of Jewish death and mourning are very complicated and even seasoned Yeshiva Rabbis and teachers do not alwys know these laws well. Learning Jewish Law takes a lifetime and there are different fields and specialties. The laws of Death and Mourning fall under what we call "practical rabbinics" - it is something a congregational Rabbi who is less learned in Talmud - would have a better grasp on than most yeshiva rabbis as they deal with it as part of their job.

Thus only some of the teachers would have known these rules and not many of them either. It would have had to be the older and more scholarly ones. But there is almost zero chance that any student knew these rules. (Unless he had actually lost a family member and during the time of mourning was exposed to these laws, - easy for the authorities to check which student lost a direct family member - or he actually studied up on them because he knew he would be coming across a dead body - pretty sick - but in that case someone would have known and seen what he was learning and it would have stuck out as very odd).

There have been claims that the Yeshiva stonewalled the investigation because of religious reasons. I’d like to make it clear that Religious Jews who cover up crimes of this nature (or assault or sexual molestation) are not fulfilling any religious laws, they are fulfilling self preservation. The Jewish law forbidding reporting another Jew to non Jewish authorities does not apply - anywhere - in any shape or form - when it comes to crimes that endanger the community. The law of not going to non Jewish authorities only applies to monetary disputes. Jews are "supposed" to be able to settle their monetary differences through Jewish arbitration. This works only because the law of the land allows arbitration to work. It is in fact sanctioned by the government. (The government welcomes any form of arbitration as it relieves the court system which is overwhelmed). However, the notion by so many of my fellow orthodox Jews that hiding violent crimes falls under this rubric is nonsense. I would say it is misguided, but there is no one in the Orthodox world who does not know the truth. The community must be protected, that is paramount. Human life is sacrosanct and suspends all Jewish law. Every Jewish child knows the law that to save a life one MUST desecrate the Sabbath.

If the Yeshiva did in fact stonewall the investigation as the deceased's father alleged in a suit that he filed against them back then, then they have committed the ultimate act of desecrating G-d's name and shaming their own people and religion.

I attended Ner Israel in Baltimore in the late 80s early 90s. I do think your description is accurate for the most part, but there was plenty of porn, guys going out late to meet women etc when I was there. Of course it is impossible to prevent that. I personally have very little use for the Yeshiva system or the sense of entitlement it infuses in the students. I recall getting to college and feeling so ignorant. While my own children are too young for yeshiva anyways and we really do not live in a Jewish community, I would never send them to a yeshiva.
A frient of mine had shared this story with me and I found it interesting to read up on. I have noticed one detail based on this posting that is never mentioned.

In the 60s and 70s there were tons of boys in Yeshiva that came from small towns all across america. Their fathers were the rabbi's often in these towns and would be responsible to every aspect of Jewish life. I asked my mother who was not a rabbi's child but grew up in a small town in North Carolina and she new every aspect of preparing a dead body. By the 80s most of these communities died away as the children of these rabbi's children chose to move to big communities etc. As well as NAFTA and other issues that changed rust belt, Southern economics. I am guessing by 1986 there were very few of these boys in Yeshiva, Perhaps a rebbe who originally came from one of these towns. It is interesting how it was never mentioned that that sort of person would know the laws pertaining to dead bodies.

@ Robert,
I feel bad for you, that after all the years spent in yeshiva, you felt so ignorant when you got to college. I also feel bad for your parents. They probably invested much in your yeshiva education, and their grandchildren will likely not have the same opportunity that they worked so hard to give you.

I too attended a yeshiva, but I must say that I felt very empowered by my the education I received. Our school curriculum was state approved, and at the end of each year, we took state exams, which I successfully passed (A student). I was able to go on to the next stages of life, without having any feelings of opportunities missed. No, I didn't come away from yeshiva with any sense of entitlement. Nobody owed/owes me anything, and if I want something I need to work for it.

But as they say, "different strokes for different folks". Each person has a different experience, and part of it depends on the diligence that a student applied to their studies. In my day, anybody that applied himself in school did well in school, and in life in general.

What I find refreshing in your post is, that despite your reference to boys looking for outlets for their sex hormones, you don't mention anything about ever hearing about a yeshiva boy or staff murdering one another. I posit that this is because murder is very far removed from the yeshiva way of life. People sometimes get angry at another, but I never heard of anyone I know flying into such a rage at another person that he murdered him in cold blood.

The reason I bring this up, is because of the innuendo being made promulgated that it must have been an inside job by one of the students or staff. Having been in the yeshiva system, I find that suggestion very far-fetched. I would agree that it was done by somebody who knew the crime scene well, but my bet is on a non-Jewish person who had previous access to the school.

I have suggested in the past, that it might have been the school janitor. It seems that the investigation into the janitor hasn’t been exhausted, and should be reopened. I don’t believe that he was even questioned using a lie detector! At the time he did fall under suspicion, but he presented an alibi which some people on this thread think may have been flawed.

@ Robert,
I feel bad for you, that after all the years spent in yeshiva, you felt so ignorant when you got to college. I also feel bad for your parents. They probably invested much in your yeshiva education, and their grandchildren will likely not have the same opportunity that they worked so hard to give you.

I too attended a yeshiva, but I must say that I felt very empowered by my the education I received. Our school curriculum was state approved, and at the end of each year, we took state exams, which I successfully passed (A student). I was able to go on to the next stages of life, without having any feelings of opportunities missed. No, I didn't come away from yeshiva with any sense of entitlement. Nobody owed/owes me anything, and if I want something I need to work for it.

But as they say, "different strokes for different folks". Each person has a different experience, and part of it depends on the diligence that a student applied to their studies. In my day, anybody that applied himself in school did well in school, and in life in general.

What I find refreshing in your post is, that despite your reference to boys looking for outlets for their sex hormones, you don't mention anything about ever hearing about a yeshiva boy or staff murdering one another. I posit that this is because murder is very far removed from the yeshiva way of life. People sometimes get angry at another, but I never heard of anyone I know flying into such a rage at another person that he murdered him in cold blood.

The reason I bring this up, is because of the innuendo being made promulgated that it must have been an inside job by one of the students or staff. Having been in the yeshiva system, I find that suggestion very far-fetched. I would agree that it was done by somebody who knew the crime scene well, but my bet is on a non-Jewish person who had previous access to the school.

I have suggested in the past, that it might have been the school janitor. It seems that the investigation into the janitor hasn’t been exhausted, and should be reopened. I don’t believe that he was even questioned using a lie detector! At the time he did fall under suspicion, but he presented an alibi which some people on this thread think may have been flawed.

Are you RebZissel?

who?

@Hambone2421
Nope. I'm not RebZissel. I'm a different former yeshiva guy, who is bothered by the lack of progress on the case.

I know that it's been mentioned before, but I think that it's preposterous to think that the murderer would have no qualms about murdering a boy in cold blood, yet would be concerned about conforming to Jewish ritual regarding a corpse. More so, when every extra minute spent at a crime scene increases his risk of getting caught.

There can be many other reasons why the window would have been opened by the murderer. For example, he felt faint from the stress of the murder, and needed some air. Two, he threw down his bloodied clothes in a plastic bag, which he then retrieved when he left the building. Three, he couldn't see his accomplice who was waiting for him in the getaway car, so he needed to stick his head out to see what's happening...

The janitor was away on a military base at the time of Chaim's murder. That's as close to an airtight alibi that you could get. I don't believe the janitor had any involvement with Chaim's murder. And would the janitor have even known Chaim was one of two students to not have a roommate?

I still contend that Chaim was murdered by a fellow student.

We’re all entitled to our opinions. The fact remains, that after 30 years the case is colder than a body in the morgue. So if there’s a real interest in solving this, then you have to reassess previously held notions, and start thinking out of the box.

As I’ve stated, I suspect that the murderer was the Polish janitor at the yeshiva that was fired some time before the murder.

The problem is that by now the point is moot. The janitor has been reported dead:
http://hamodia.com/2013/05/28/da-reopens-baffling-tragedy-of-chaim-weiss-zl/
“Vincent Garcia said that police are still looking into all possibilities, including one theory involving a janitor in the building, described as troubled, who was no longer employed soon after the tragedy. He had an alibi at the time but has since returned to his native Poland. Police have questioned him and are continuing to speak to his family, since he is no longer alive.

But for arguments sake, let’s review:

Old School TV reported: “There was one Polish janitor who seemed to stick out in everyone's mind. He was openly anti-Semitic and violent. He had an explosive temper. Students would taunt him in order to get a rise out of him and he would respond by slamming them into walls or throwing things at them. My friend remembers the Polish janitor getting into scuffles with students in the cafeteria and throwing hangers at them. The man by all accounts had "a few screws loose."

“During the summer months of 1986, the Polish janitor was either fired or suddenly had to leave. The exact reason remains unknown. He left on very bad terms”.

I suggest, that he was furious about his dismissal, and he suspected that Chaim had complained about him to the yeshiva staff, which had caused his termination. He therefore sought to take revenge from Chaim.

The fired janitor knew the combination how to get in to the building, and also knew the layout of the dorm very well. Moreover, he knew exactly which room Chaim slept in. This fits in very well with media reports that the murderer evidently was well acquainted with the dormitory and its’ routine.

I’m well aware of the argument, that the janitor was away on a military base at the time of Chaim's murder, which appears to be an airtight alibi.

But as “hydranc” already pointed out, “just how did they demonstrate he never left the facility? Unless he worked a shift during the time the crime occurred, they really have no way of actually tracking his whereabouts". He says, "I was in the air force during the time this happened and you only showed your credentials when returning to the base and there was no way of tracking your coming and going....at least in the air force”.

“Old School TV” also responded to you and offered an explanation how the “airtight” alibi may not be as airtight as it appears to be. In his words:

“He bribes a senior officer to leave for one day while he marks down his attendance. Money talks. It has been done before. The former janitor leaves the base with the senior officer's help during the early morning hours of October 31, 1986. He drives to New York and arrives around noon. The base may have been in Virginia or a drive-able distance in general. He reaches Long Island and sleeps in the car he borrowed for a few hours. He wakes up and changes his clothes. The weapon is ready to be used.

“At midnight he drives to Long Beach and waits for an hour. Everyone is asleep by the time he approaches the building. He knows the back door is broken and enters quietly. He goes up the stairs to the third floor. He opens the door to the wrong room and sees that Chaim is not there. He closes it suddenly. He enters the room with Chaim in it. He sees the very boy who taunted him or who he may have thought was responsible for his termination, which made him homeless and threatened him with the possibility of deportation. He stabs him twelve times in a psychotic rage. When he finishes, the room is extremely messy because of what I mentioned before.

“He leaves the building. Suddenly he freaks out. He thinks he may have left something. I don't believe he was dumb enough to leave the weapon. It may have been a lack of confidence in how he left the room. He goes back and moves Chaim's body to make sure nothing that could lead back to him was left there. Maybe he left his gloves there or put down a flashlight. Maybe he just wanted to have one last look to make sure the crime scene could not lead back to him.

“He leaves without being seen. He gets into his car and drives back to the base. Somewhere along the road he disposes of the murder weapon and the clothes he was wearing. He comes back to the base and not a soul notices he was gone.

“When the police ask his senior officer about the former janitor's whereabouts the day of the murder, I STRONGLY believe that the senior officer lied and would not admit to being bribed by a man being investigated for murder. He may have worried that he would lose his position and be tried for being an accessory to murder”.

Finally, I point to a tantalizing anonymous comment, left on a different website:
http://dusiznies.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/986-murder-of-jewish-child-chaim-weiss.html
Anonymous said... “He was Murdered by the Janitor. But not because he was fired. The Janitor Was My pacient [sic]”.

My question is as follows. In today’s day and age, a poster’s IP address can be tracked down. Did anybody investigate this poster?

I rest my case.

The whole theory that the janitor would go through such great lengths to leave a military base for the sole purpose of murdering a 15 year old Jewish boy at a school where he was previously employed just seems outlandish to me.

I hear your question. But I suggest that this wasn't just a *random* 15 year old Jewish boy at a school where he was previously employed. He had a personal vendetta against Chaim, and targeted him for revenge.

If he thought that Chaim was the one responsible for his being fired, and all the problems that came along with that, then he really had it in for Chaim. This anger festered in him, all the while he planned to pull off the perfect crime. You need to be able to project about the emotions involved, and you will see that my theory isn't outlandish at all.

The whole theory that the janitor would go through such great lengths to leave a military base for the sole purpose of murdering a 15 year old Jewish boy at a school where he was previously employed just seems outlandish to me.

I agree with you.

Besides that- from the way he was described it doesn't sound like he was mentally stable enough to pull off such a perfectly planned murder.

I've demonstrated why my suggestion is not as outlandish as people want to make it appear, and I don't need to repeat myself.

Never underestimate a criminal's abilities. Also, it might have been more luck than skill.

You also don't know if he had an accomplice to help him out.

Did the murderer drive a car to the crime scene? Did an accomplice drive him there, and then they made the getaway? Will we ever find out?

The whole theory that the janitor would go through such great lengths to leave a military base for the sole purpose of murdering a 15 year old Jewish boy at a school where he was previously employed just seems outlandish to me.

Especially when there is absolutely zero evidence of him bribing his way off the base.

I got ripped by Zessel before for this opinion but I think inside job and quite possibly a sexual element. So many murders involve sex or money. I also think that single sex boarding situations lead to strange social dynamics and behaviours.

I wish more info had come forth when they reopened the investigation.

I tend to agree with those who think it was someone from the school who committed this crime. I know there are others saying no Orthodox person would do this, but there are bad apples in every bunch! The fact that I think this was in intra-religious crime is in no way because I think anything specifically about the religion. When it comes down to it we are all human, and there are extreme cases in EVERY religion. The Amish, Orthodox Jews, Christians, whatever. They have all had a few people who, despite all their religious and moral training and beliefs, have gone off the deep end. I just think that is the answer that makes the most amount of sense. The person didn't have to be a criminal mastermind, he just needed some basic knowledge and a lot of luck. If this was some kind of fit of rage, the circumstance and the fact that it was a not-yet-fully-developed teen-aged brain, the fact is it could have been a one time horrible incident and the person went on to live a completely productive life, never committing another crime again.

IMO the religion has nothing to do with it, it's just a "coincidence" in that they were at the yeshiva at the same time. Any similar setting (young kids, living closely, etc...) with the right circumstances would have had the same unfortunate result.

I understand wanting to say the janitor did it. What I don't understand about it is why on Earth would he think Chaim was responsible for him being fired if he apparently had so man run ins with different students and had such a bad reputation? If he truly was known to have run ins with the kids to the point of throwing them against walls he had to know he was treading on thin ice, I don't see why he would come back and target one kid of many. I think Chaim's murder was completely a heat of the moment thing, some small argument or slight that just made someone snap.

Did the murderer drive a car to the crime scene? Did an accomplice drive him there, and then they made the getaway? Will we ever find out?

The crime scene suggests that whoever killed Chaim was careful enough to exit the room without transferring any blood. The crime scene also suggests that his killer returned to the room after killing Chaim for an unknown reason. So why would the janitor return to the crime scene after killing Chaim? The police have said that his body was moved twice. Why would the janitor do this, if his intent was to murder Chaim for an unknown reason?

Everything about the crime scene tells me this was an inside job. Probably a student, due to the amount of times Chaim was killed. It appears like a frenzied attack by an inexperienced killer. I think whoever killed Chaim, opened the window and tossed their bloody clothes out, went out and retrieved them and tossed them. It was only then that the killer realized he forgot something (murder weapon possibly), so he goes back to Chaim's room to retrieve it. This is why Chaim's body was moved twice. He was looking for something in the dark room.

"It was only then that the killer realized he forgot something (murder weapon possibly), so he goes back to Chaim's room to retrieve it".

Couldn't the janitor realized that he forgot something?

I don't know if it has to be the murder weapon that he forgot. It could have been a peersonal item, like his watch, wallet, ring, or some item from his pocket. It obviously was serious enough to warrant risking another entrance into the school building.

"It was only then that the killer realized he forgot something (murder weapon possibly), so he goes back to Chaim's room to retrieve it".

Couldn't the janitor realized that he forgot something?

I don't know if it has to be the murder weapon that he forgot. It could have been a peersonal item, like his watch, wallet, ring, or some item from his pocket. It obviously was serious enough to warrant risking another entrance into the school building.

It could have been anything that the killer forgot. The point being, the only person who could have re-entered the crime scene with minimal fear of being caught would be someone from inside that building. A janitor who miraculously got off of a military base without anyone seeing him, would want to try and make it back to the base (which I believe was out of state) as quickly as possible. An outsider going back to a crime scene full of potential witnesses is not the smartest thing to do. I would imagine he would want to high tail it out of there ASAP.

And if the killer was a student, as I believe it was, that explains why the killer re-entered Chaim's room...he was already there, and wouldn't need to go far or do much to exit the building and then return.

The crime scene also suggests that his killer returned to the room after killing Chaim for an unknown reason.



I've also heard that the crime scene suggests that the killer returned later on during the night. It seems that forensics point to Chaim being moved to the floor a considerable amount of time after the murder.

As far fetched as this may sound- is it possible that the murderer was in the room the entire time? According to Jewish burial law a body isn't supposed to be left alone until burial. This would be in line with those that say that the window was opened and the body was moved to the floor for religious purposes. (Obviously the body was left alone but perhaps the murderer tried to minimize that amount of time.)

With regard to the Polish janitor- if he was let go over the summer there's no way he would have know which room Chaim was in. Most Yeshiva High Schools switch around the rooms for each grade. (Unless he was just looking for one of the rooms that only had one student in it.)

"Unless he was just looking for one of the rooms that only had one student in it"

This is what I always thought, but no one ever brings up the point. The janitor may have done it. But he may not have been targeting any specific student. Who says he was after Chaim? It could very well be that he wanted to take revenge against the Yeshiva for firing him or maybe it was simply anti antisemitism. Perhaps some students taunted him. Once he was fired and had an alibi, he could kill one of the students, which he long wanted to do since he knew how to get into the building and that Shabbos was the best day to do it. He wouldn't attack someone in a room with more than one student since that would wake up the other student(s). He knew how to get in and remembered where the room with the single student was located. Perhaps he opened one other door thinking that it was the single room but closed it when he saw it was not.

This clears things up. How did he know which room Chaim was in? Why did he hate Chaim? The janitor simply wanted to kill one of the students.

It was pointed out that Chaim was killed with exceptional force which indicates hatred. This does not mean that the janitor necessarily hated Chaim. Perhaps when he was looking at one of the students who he hated for whatever reason, he became more excited and killed him with great force.

As I mentioned it may have been Jew hatred. He came from a country with a rich hatred of Jews and the holocaust was not long ago...and every day working at the Yeshiva renewed in him a hatred for Jews and he vowed to come back and murder one of the students once he left. He certainly would not kill anyone while he was there since he risked getting caught, but once he moved on it was less risky. And he knew how to get in etc.

Or perhaps it was a combination of reasons. He was taunted by some students. He never liked Jews, especially coming from a place of Jew hatred. And perhaps some bad experiences ignited in him his Jew hatred which was always there in the back of his mind. He never would have killed a student but hatred toward the Yeshiva and/or some students along with an antisemitic attitude which was ratcheted up perhaps due to some taunting remarks, or simply by his interaction with Jews who he hated made him decide to kill one of them.

Bottom line, whether it was a hatred toward the student body, Jew hatred or anything else, or perhaps a combination of reasons, the janitor may have killed Chaim because he was a student sleeping alone in a room which was the only way to murder and get a way with it. He may have had no special hatred toward Chaim more than anyone else.

May Chaim's soul rest in peace.

I haven't finished going through all of the posts here, but as an Orthodox Jew who is quite familiar with the area, (I have family living two houses down from the dorm) I want to clarify a few things.
First of all, Halloween in those days was a scary time for the Yidden in the neighborhood. I know people who were followed into Shul (synagogue) by egg throwing, screaming antisemites. The police there were not very good or reliable, so there is no surprise that they didn't show up that night, they probably came up with better ways to spend their holiday.
Chaim's window is very easily viewed from the street so anyone walking by could have seen into the room.
A jogger's account of seeing "a Yeshiva student" on the boardwalk is meaningless to me as there were many religious people who live in the area and it could have been any of them enjoying the morning. The community spends much time on the boardwalk even on Shabbos.
Chaim was known amongst the boys as being quite popular and a leader, however he was always willing to help others. He would often pick up the tab at Waldbaums or when they would get Pizza, so I do;t think that anyone would be jealous of him, or his affluence.
Finally, this Yeshiva is known for being particularly Religious and the boys would not have any contact with girls. When walking on the street they would cross over to the other side, so as to avoid any contact.

I haven't finished going through all of the posts here, but as an Orthodox Jew who is quite familiar with the area, (I have family living two houses down from the dorm) I want to clarify a few things.
First of all, Halloween in those days was a scary time for the Yidden in the neighborhood. I know people who were followed into Shul (synagogue) by egg throwing, screaming antisemites. The police there were not very good or reliable, so there is no surprise that they didn't show up that night, they probably came up with better ways to spend their holiday.
Chaim's window is very easily viewed from the street so anyone walking by could have seen into the room.
A jogger's account of seeing "a Yeshiva student" on the boardwalk is meaningless to me as there were many religious people who live in the area and it could have been any of them enjoying the morning. The community spends much time on the boardwalk even on Shabbos.
.

I just thought of something. Since the previous night was Halloween, could it be possible that the person the jogger witnessed was someone who may have DISGUISED themselves as a Yeshiva student as 'costume' but actually wasn't one been the person the jogger witnessed? Still, one wonders why after ALL the publicity, if the person witnessed was completely untied to the murder, why wouldn't he have come forward and just said who he was and what his alibi was during the time of the crime?

I haven't finished going through all of the posts here, but as an Orthodox Jew who is quite familiar with the area, (I have family living two houses down from the dorm) I want to clarify a few things.
First of all, Halloween in those days was a scary time for the Yidden in the neighborhood. I know people who were followed into Shul (synagogue) by egg throwing, screaming antisemites. The police there were not very good or reliable, so there is no surprise that they didn't show up that night, they probably came up with better ways to spend their holiday.
Chaim's window is very easily viewed from the street so anyone walking by could have seen into the room.
A jogger's account of seeing "a Yeshiva student" on the boardwalk is meaningless to me as there were many religious people who live in the area and it could have been any of them enjoying the morning. The community spends much time on the boardwalk even on Shabbos.
Chaim was known amongst the boys as being quite popular and a leader, however he was always willing to help others. He would often pick up the tab at Waldbaums or when they would get Pizza, so I do;t think that anyone would be jealous of him, or his affluence.
Finally, this Yeshiva is known for being particularly Religious and the boys would not have any contact with girls. When walking on the street they would cross over to the other side, so as to avoid any contact.

I assume that you also went to the school at the same time as Chaim?

I was thinking about this case again and I was coming on here to post about how I thought that an outsider committing a hate-motivated crime in this case was really unlikely, but I thought I'd better do a little research first, and, wouldn't you know it - even today, Jews are still the most frequent target of hate crimes in the United States (http://forward.com/news/325988/jews-are-still-the-biggest-target-of-hate-crimes/). This really surprised me, and of course we aren't talking about today - we are talking about 30 years ago now, when the situation was, presumably, worse.

The trouble with this case is that it just doesn't profile cleanly one way or the other. I would think for a hate crime it is somewhat unusual. Most crimes like that are, at least to some extent, crimes of opportunity - the "standard" scenario that leaps to mind is a small group of perhaps somewhat inebriated hate-mongers walking or driving somewhere and spotting a person from a group they wish to target, perhaps alone, or maybe with 1 or 2 others... but in any case outnumbered by the antagonists. They jump the person/people, assault them, and move on. This obviously wasn't that, or anything close... it feels very targeted... if it was an outsider, this person entered a dorm, searched to find a victim who was alone, assaulted Chaim while he slept, with the opening and obvious intent to kill, but without the use of a gun (a lot of hate crimes where one person or group jumps another are arguably 'manslaughter' rather than murder in that the assault begins without the specific intent to kill, but rather to simply beat up the target). The person left nothing to indicate his motive - so what was the point? For all these reasons, it doesn't really read like a hate crime, one meant to intimidate a whole group or "send a message."

On the other hand, the disappearing weapon means that if this were an inside job, whoever did this took the risk of leaving the premises (presumably) to dispose of the weapon, and then returning. Get caught and the game's up. Also, whoever did this, one would think, would have had clothes that would have shown obvious signs of involvement (blood stains), but if any such clothes were ever recovered, there is no indication of such. Again, it suggests whoever did this actually left the dorm not only to dispose of the weapon but of his clothes too. That also seems unlikely to have been pulled off successfully, particularly by a kid around Chaim's age.

Yes, it could have been staff, or there is the remote possibility of the outsider who came in not out of hate but out of a specific goal of targeting Chaim for some reason (perhaps because of some family business question), but there really is no apparent evidence to support the latter theory, and seems unlikely anyway.

The much-discussed but ill-defined "Polish janitor" theory, invoked by some with a little bit of inside knowledge on this board, has never felt entirely satisfactory, not least because, even by the theory's adherents, if indeed it was this person, he would have had to harbor an anger over being dismissed from the school for something like 4 months (he had been dismissed at the end of the preceding school year, evidently), to the point that he decided to make a several hundred mile round-trip trip to come back to a dorm of his former employer to kill a student in one night and then return to the base where he was stationed and never reported absent. Even if he did all of this, such theory requires the surmise that this person would have had to bribe or otherwise convince some person at the base to cover for his absence from the base for at least some length of time, since even to drive to Long Island and back from where he was stationed in one day would have taken most of the day. Who stays that mad for that long and then murders some kid? Seems very unlikely.

The authorities in the segment conceded that they really couldn't say if this were an inside or outside job. In their most recent press conference on the case - a couple of years ago already - they seem to be coming from the position that they are fairly certain it was an inside job. I wonder what, if anything, changed.

Is there any news on Chaim's case? This one has always haunted me, it just doesn't make sense.

Here is a recent article from six months ago about Chaim's case.

http://www.jta.org/2015/10/30/news-opinion/united-states/1986-yeshiva-murder-still-unsolved-detectives-believe-culprit-was-faculty-or-student

It's a short article but what's interesting to me is the article says, "NY police believe faculty member or student responsible for 1986 yeshiva murder". Then a few sentences later, it states, "Since reopening the investigation three years ago, detectives have interviewed over 100 former students at the suburban New York school, yet made little progress."

I'm curious how they have now come to the conclusion that a former student or teacher killed Chaim after making little progress on the reopening of this case?

Wasn't there an awful lot of speculation that the killer was a janitor?

It's been awhile, so I apologize if I'm off.

There has been some speculation of a Polish janitor who had some anti-semite views and who supposedly had a run in with Chaim. I believe it was RebZissel who said he was working at a military base close by, but to me, that scenario for that specific janitor seems very far fetched due to the amount of trouble he would have to go to just to sneak off and back on the military base.

You all will have to refresh my memory about the Janitor? It's been a long time since i've seen Chaim's segment...

I still reckon it was one of the fellow students.

You all will have to refresh my memory about the Janitor? It's been a long time since i've seen Chaim's segment...

It wasn't on the segment. Just go back through this thread as there were several posters who were close to the case who mentioned he was a suspect at one point.

I'm still thinking it was one of the fellow students.:confused:

My suspicions is one of the Rabbis. The janitor....Eh it could be. But the police did discount him. That doesn't mean he is innocent tho. Just from all the articles and research I've done. I just believe its either a student or Rabbi. As does my father who is a convert to the Jewish faith. Apparently the type of faith they practiced at the Yeshiva is considered "Extreme" or "Radical" by many of the Jewish faith. Now in NO WAY does it mean that the people that attended WERE RADICALS or EXTREMISTS is any way that is negative. My father stated of the ones he had a personal relationships with that they were similar to the ones featured or discussed were no more "radical" than an Amish Family. However he had heard of interesting things happening with a few that were similar to the afore mentioned.(Not Chaim's) According to Police they have a hair that was not Chaim's. At the time it was so small they could not test it due to it possibly degrading the hair. Hopefully with the advancements of technology in the future. This case will be solved. I feel for the Weiss Family. Its been WAY too long.

According to Police they have a hair that was not Chaim's. At the time it was so small they could not test it due to it possibly degrading the hair. Hopefully with the advancements of technology in the future. This case will be solved. I feel for the Weiss Family. Its been WAY too long.

Where did you hear/read this at? Just curious so I can take a look as well. If this is true though, they should go ahead and test it now, if they haven't already. DNA testing is better now than it ever has been.

Where did you hear/read this at? Just curious so I can take a look as well. If this is true though, they should go ahead and test it now, if they haven't already. DNA testing is better now than it ever has been.
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/nassau-cops-want-to-reopen-1986-slaying-case-of-chaim-weiss-1.5340909

Where did you hear/read this at? Just curious so I can take a look as well. If this is true though, they should go ahead and test it now, if they haven't already. DNA testing is better now than it ever has been.
I've followed in depth (As have many here) regarding this case. One of the few I can obsess over. I've talked to a few classmates. And followed one of the Rabbi (No contact with him) throughout the years. He had a legal issue regarding zoning laws or something a few years back.

When we all watched the segment, we were all led to believe that Chaim was hit once in the head with some sort of object that killed him instantly. However, on this board, RebZissel and several other posters have stated that they have been informed that this murder scene was far worse than that and basically, pure carnage. My question is, all these years later and after a re-investigation into the murder, why have we not seen a single comment or quote from a police officer to back that up? Now, as most of you know, law enforcement will withhold information from the public for several reasons in order to catch the guilty party. Are they still withholding evidence thirty years later? If so, it must be something they consider to be a very big piece of evidence. I just wonder what it could be.

The post on page 1 of this thread by the poster Rapunzel... from 2007, 9 years ago!... makes reference to an FBI report that specifies that the autopsy revealed Chaim had been hit several times, leading the medical examiner to conclude this was a "frenzy-type" killing.

A link to this report was not provided... perhaps a little detective work and we can find it, however.

This site repeats this information... and their source, they say, was a Newsday article. But what was Newsday's source?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/24/police-reopening-investigation-into-1986-murder-of-long-beach-student/

A frenzy attack... does that mean like lots of people or one person killing him very fast?

A frenzy attack... does that mean like lots of people or one person killing him very fast?

It could mean either one but in this case, it was a lone killer stabbing him over and over in a frenzied type rage.

It could mean either one but in this case, it was a lone killer stabbing him over and over in a frenzied type rage.

Which, if true, suggests that Chaim knew his killer. Or his killer knew him and had an ax to grind with him for some reason.

Which, if true, suggests that Chaim knew his killer. Or his killer knew him and had an ax to grind with him for some reason.

Making the theory of a fellow student killing him seem much more likely, IMO.

Making the theory of a fellow student killing him seem much more likely, IMO.

The only issue I can see with a fellow student is the crime scene. It was super bloody and, by all accounts, a complete mess. It just seems doubtful to me that a teenager would be able to slide in and out of that room, undetected, murder Chaim is such a brutal fashion, slip back out and not drip blood from his clothes or person and get rid of his clothes (assuming he/she was wearing clothes) and murder weapon and keep this entire thing concealed and hidden from authorities for over 30 years. But hey, stranger things have happened.

omg that is shocking!

The only issue I can see with a fellow student is the crime scene. It was super bloody and, by all accounts, a complete mess. It just seems doubtful to me that a teenager would be able to slide in and out of that room, undetected, murder Chaim is such a brutal fashion, slip back out and not drip blood from his clothes or person and get rid of his clothes (assuming he/she was wearing clothes) and murder weapon and keep this entire thing concealed and hidden from authorities for over 30 years. But hey, stranger things have happened.

Was there more than one dorm facility for the school? Or did all of the students reside in one building? I can't remember.

Was there more than one dorm facility for the school? Or did all of the students reside in one building? I can't remember.

I believe there was more than one dorm facility. The dorm that Chaim was in looked small compared to other dorms I've seen.

I believe there was more than one dorm facility. The dorm that Chaim was in looked small compared to other dorms I've seen.

I visited the yeshiva back in 1991. Back then there were a few dormitories and when I asked about the one where the murder took place I was told that it's no longer used for students. Half of the building was used for maintenance and the other half was being taken apart (or had been taken apart) one piece at a time in search of the murder weapon.

I visited the yeshiva back in 1991. Back then there were a few dormitories and when I asked about the one where the murder took place I was told that it's no longer used for students. Half of the building was used for maintenance and the other half was being taken apart (or had been taken apart) one piece at a time in search of the murder weapon.

Thanks for the info. I believe the building the murder took place in was eventually torn down and rebuilt at a later time. I'm not 100% on that but I'm fairly certain it was mentioned somewhere in this thread.

Thanks for the info. I believe the building the murder took place in was eventually torn down and rebuilt at a later time. I'm not 100% on that but I'm fairly certain it was mentioned somewhere in this thread.

I thought I heard that it was totally renovated and is currently used as a dormitory again. I also thought I heard that the room where the murder took place is currently a shower room.

I thought I heard that it was totally renovated and is currently used as a dormitory again. I also thought I heard that the room where the murder took place is currently a shower room.

Could be. Its been over 30 years so I'm sure there have been numerous renovations.

I believe there was more than one dorm facility. The dorm that Chaim was in looked small compared to other dorms I've seen.

I don't think it's all that farfetched, if a student lived in a different dorm. He could have thrown his bloody garments out of the open window before heading down and exiting the building without anyone knowing he left or came back.

I don't think it's all that farfetched, if a student lived in a different dorm. He could have thrown his bloody garments out of the open window before heading down and exiting the building without anyone knowing he left or came back.

Definitely could have. I just find it odd that not a single speck or drop of blood was found anywhere outside of Chaim's dorm room. Its as though the entire campus was power washed except for that room. I definitely don't think its far fetched to believe a fellow student did it, I just find it hard to believe that a teenager could commit, what turned out to be, the perfect crime, without a single shred of evidence left behind (that we are aware of) or any evidence around the campus.

Definitely could have. I just find it odd that not a single speck or drop of blood was found anywhere outside of Chaim's dorm room. Its as though the entire campus was power washed except for that room. I definitely don't think its far fetched to believe a fellow student did it, I just find it hard to believe that a teenager could commit, what turned out to be, the perfect crime, without a single shred of evidence left behind (that we are aware of) or any evidence around the campus.

If Chaim was killed in the early morning hours, that gave his killer ample time to dispose of evidence and clean up before anyone even knew anything was wrong.

If Chaim was killed in the early morning hours, that gave his killer ample time to dispose of evidence and clean up before anyone even knew anything was wrong.

Right, but what I'm getting at is that a teenager wouldn't have the necessary means to dispose of certain things used to clean up, whereas an adult would. Say a student killed Chaim, lets call him Tom. Tom comes back with towels or some sort of cloth to wipe down the area of his finger print, shoot prints, DNA of his, etc.. These things Tom is using would need to be disposed of. Lets say he dropped them out the window as you mentioned (which is an excellent theory) and then went down to pick them up to dispose of. Where would he go with them and how would he get there? They have resident advisors in yeshivas just like at other colleges, that could possibly spot him or run the risk of being seen by one of them. Whereas, an adult wouldn't have to answer to anyone and is free to go on and off campus as they please.

Right, but what I'm getting at is that a teenager wouldn't have the necessary means to dispose of certain things used to clean up, whereas an adult would. Say a student killed Chaim, lets call him Tom. Tom comes back with towels or some sort of cloth to wipe down the area of his finger print, shoot prints, DNA of his, etc.. These things Tom is using would need to be disposed of. Lets say he dropped them out the window as you mentioned (which is an excellent theory) and then went down to pick them up to dispose of. Where would he go with them and how would he get there? They have resident advisors in yeshivas just like at other colleges, that could possibly spot him or run the risk of being seen by one of them. Whereas, an adult wouldn't have to answer to anyone and is free to go on and off campus as they please.


The dorm was located in a residential area, IIRC. The killer could have simply walked anywhere and dumped them. Not to mention that the jogger did see the boy resembling a Yeshiva student in the early morning hours away from the dormitory.

FWIW, they never did find one of the knives that Darlie Routier used to murder her children with. That's why I don't think it's too farfetched that the killer didn't have to go far to dispose of evidence.

The dorm was located in a residential area, IIRC. The killer could have simply walked anywhere and dumped them. Not to mention that the jogger did see the boy resembling a Yeshiva student in the early morning hours away from the dormitory.

FWIW, they never did find one of the knives that Darlie Routier used to murder her children with. That's why I don't think it's too farfetched that the killer didn't have to go far to dispose of evidence.

I'm going under the assumption that police did a very thorough search of the grounds and surrounding area. Although that assumption could prove to be futile as I don't have any proof that this one done.

Good point with Routier.

I don't think the fact that it was a violent frenzy necessarily means that the killer knew Chaim personally. Ted Bundy killed total strangers in a violent and angry fashion. I know this is a long shot, but were there any other similar murders in the area around the same time?

I just re-watched this segment and I took notice of something that I hadn't before.

At the end of the segment, Stack mentions that the police are haunted as to why anyone would brutally murdered a 15 year old boy that seemingly had no known enemies. He then says that police have only discovered one "significant clue" as to why someone would. He then mentions the jogger that believes he may have seen a Yeshiva student a few blocks from the school at 7am the morning Chaim's body was found. Why would the police consider this random, probably incorrect sighting, "significant"? These type of sightings occur in almost every case and 99% of the time, they are wrong. There has to be something more to this supposed sighting than they let on in the segment. I just wonder what it was?

I just re-watched this segment and I took notice of something that I hadn't before.

At the end of the segment, Stack mentions that the police are haunted as to why anyone would brutally murdered a 15 year old boy that seemingly had no known enemies. He then says that police have only discovered one "significant clue" as to why someone would. He then mentions the jogger that believes he may have seen a Yeshiva student a few blocks from the school at 7am the morning Chaim's body was found. Why would the police consider this random, probably incorrect sighting, "significant"? These type of sightings occur in almost every case and 99% of the time, they are wrong. There has to be something more to this supposed sighting than they let on in the segment. I just wonder what it was?


I've always felt this was insignificant and bad producing on the show's part. Seeing an Orthodox Jewish boy would have been normal in that area.

I've always felt this was insignificant and bad producing on the show's part. Seeing an Orthodox Jewish boy would have been normal in that area.

That's exactly what I mean. For them to say that, it makes me believe that there was something about this boy that was significant. I have no idea what that may have been though.

I always thought it was one of the students or faculty.

That's exactly what I mean. For them to say that, it makes me believe that there was something about this boy that was significant. I have no idea what that may have been though.


Perhaps the students had a very strict curfew and that time of day would have been too early for one of them to have been seen on the street in that attire under ordinary circumstances.

Perhaps the students had a very strict curfew and that time of day would have been too early for one of them to have been seen on the street in that attire under ordinary circumstances.

I believe the students were supposed to attend services that morning, which would place the student (if he was from the school) as seen by the jogger elsewhere, and he instantly would become a person of interest if identified. I guess the police place so much significance on this sighting due to the timing of everything.

I believe the students were supposed to attend services that morning, which would place the student (if he was from the school) as seen by the jogger elsewhere, and he instantly would become a person of interest if identified. I guess the police place so much significance on this sighting due to the timing of everything.

I went to a private religious based school at one point during my school years. When we went to prayer or church, there was always someone there checking attendance of every grade level. I'd like to believe that something similar happened at the Yeshiva but I could be completely wrong. If it did happen and a student was missing, it would seem to point towards that student.

I think the killer most likely came from outside. Most likely someone who Is associated with the other students and Chaim but did not go to the school. I think if it was a student that stayed at the dorm and killed Chaim they most likely would have gotten caught. It may have been a teenager or young adult who lived in the neighborhood who was associated with the students.

I just don't think a student staying at the dorm would have been able to hide weapon and do all this without their roommate noticing something suspicious. It is possible it could have been a staff member or former staff member but who ever did this I just don't think they were staying at the dorm that night.

BTW, does anybody know what ever happened to RebZissel? He had some interesting and informative comments.

BTW, does anybody know what ever happened to RebZissel? He had some interesting and informative comments.

It looks like his posts are completely gone.

I always thought there was no actual evidence that the janitor bribed his way off the military base to commit the murder. Seemed entirely speculative.

Plus the Janitor had no known motive. It was a great theory by Rebzissel though. This case is 30 years old now as of November 1st. I wonder what the detective meant when he said "someone has a secret." It makes me think they are getting closer to solving it. This is the most interesting case on UM based on what I read on these message boards.

Welcome, yourhomiebrian! We're happy to have you.

Yes, the Chaim Weiss case is definitely very intriguing. I have no idea who could have killed this youth. I do tend to lean toward the janitor or a fellow student being the perp-- the info I read suggests that Chaim had massive head injuries which would possibly indicate someone was angry with him, as it appeared to be an "overkill" killing.

But seriously. I have no idea. Aileen Wournos was notorious for over-killing her victims and she didn't know any of them.

Thank you. I have been reading these for about 2 years now. It must have been a very physically strong individual to do that damage to Chaim.

I live in LB, and one thing I noticed is when I drive from the West to the East part of town, I often see the boys walking, in small groups, unsupervised. I believe the school and dormitory buildings are separate, and the boys walk back and forth. The boys are immediately recognizable due as they wear black Orthodox-style clothing and hats. I didn't realize how young they were until I heard Chaim's story and was surprised to seeing them walking on East Beech St. at around 11:30 on a Sunday night. The school is not in a bad part of town, but there IS a bad part of town, and this location is boardwalk-adjacent, so many visit from out of town arriving by car or by walking from the LIRR train station nearby. Although these type of cases often seem to be perpetrated by someone close to the victim, I hope Chaim did not become a target of some sketchy character he encountered on his travels. I'm so sorry this happened to him, and I hope his family has found some measure of peace despite the lack of closure.

I live in LB, and one thing I noticed is when I drive from the West to the East part of town, I often see the boys walking, in small groups, unsupervised. I believe the school and dormitory buildings are separate, and the boys walk back and forth. The boys are immediately recognizable due as they wear black Orthodox-style clothing and hats. I didn't realize how young they were until I heard Chaim's story and was surprised to seeing them walking on East Beech St. at around 11:30 on a Sunday night. The school is not in a bad part of town, but there IS a bad part of town, and this location is boardwalk-adjacent, so many visit from out of town arriving by car or by walking from the LIRR train station nearby. Although these type of cases often seem to be perpetrated by someone close to the victim, I hope Chaim did not become a target of some sketchy character he encountered on his travels. I'm so sorry this happened to him, and I hope his family has found some measure of peace despite the lack of closure.

it seems like the killer was someone who was familiar with the layout of the dorm. But IMO not someone who was staying there. Each student had a room mate so
a student would have to hide bloody clothes murder weapon from room mate without being noticed. This had to be one of the students that was on vacation or a staff member or someone associated with the school.

I sure do wish RebZissel would make a come back. Or a former student from the school. New infornation came out in 2013 since former student came on here. In October of 2015 they announced that killer was likely a student or faculty member. But the former student seemed 99 percent sure that no student would do such a thing. The police in this case seem like they may be using Sabbath silence as a scapegoat.

One individual on here said something about his Dad being a former police on the case that passed away and overheard him saying he thought it was a homeless guy that stayed near school. And weapon was hatchet/ hammer combination tool or something like that.

If it wasn't the Janitor this theory makes sense. There just appears to be no motive. It could have been homeless guy if he gad a mental illness and he snapped over something petty. The commenter said the homeless guy stayed in dorm while it was empty for a week and got thrown out. That could be motive right there. And Weiss was vulnerable because he was alone.

I think most likely Chaim Weiss was only a victim because he was alone. He wasbmost likely a sacrifical lamb to someone one was angry at the whole school. Janitor or homeless guy.

I don't think Unsolved Mysteries did a very good job on this case. It would have been more of a mystery if they hyped up the possibility of an outsider doing it. This message board is what really made this case my favorite Unsolved Mystery. If I could have only one solved it would be this one.

I always thought it was an inside job. It seems very odd that a stranger wandered into the building and just killed one of the top most prized students, with his own room randomly. Another thing I found odd is that it was a one time offense. No other students, or staff that we know of were harmed/killed after this. Either someone was really jealous, or some of the higher ups had some deep secrets, and Chiam knew about them. I also wonder if sexual misconduct was going on, or witnessed.

I always thought the "staged" ritual at his death was odd as well. Seemed like a non-Jewish person who didn't know much about the customs did it to frame a Jewish person, or a Jewish person did it poorly to make it seem like an outsider with poor Jewish knowledge did it. Geeze, I just lost myself :lol: :confused: :lol:

I always thought it was an inside job. It seems very odd that a stranger wandered into the building and just killed one of the top most prized students, with his own room randomly. Another thing I found odd is that it was a one time offense. No other students, or staff that we know of were harmed/killed after this. Either someone was really jealous, or some of the higher ups had some deep secrets, and Chiam knew about them. I also wonder if sexual misconduct was going on, or witnessed.

I always thought the "staged" ritual at his death was odd as well. Seemed like a non-Jewish person who didn't know much about the customs did it to frame a Jewish person, or a Jewish person did it poorly to make it seem like an outsider with poor Jewish knowledge did it. Geeze, I just lost myself :lol: :confused: :lol:

I have always kind of ignored the candles/ritual staging stuff because some of it seemed to be in dispute and UM always loved to play up the mystic/spook stuff. I love the show but I oftentake the eerie or bizarre stuff with a grain of salt.

More murders are by known assailants than random. I always figure sex and money are the primary motivators. Nothing would surprise me in this one, but I always had a hunch the murder was a result of some sexual experimentation that somehow went wrong. Hunch may be too strong a word.

Reb Zissel stated my theory was outlandish because such activities would be contrary to the faith of the residents, but it seems more likely than pure speculation that a Polish janitor paid off the gatekeepers at an army base.

I have always kind of ignored the candles/ritual staging stuff because some of it seemed to be in dispute and UM always loved to play up the mystic/spook stuff. I love the show but I oftentake the eerie or bizarre stuff with a grain of salt.

More murders are by known assailants than random. I always figure sex and money are the primary motivators. Nothing would surprise me in this one, but I always had a hunch the murder was a result of some sexual experimentation that somehow went wrong. Hunch may be too strong a word.

Reb Zissel stated my theory was outlandish because such activities would be contrary to the faith of the residents, but it seems more likely than pure speculation that a Polish janitor paid off the gatekeepers at an army base.

Agreed about then overplaying the spooky stuff, but if this was indeed at the crime scene then it's worth pointing out.

I agree with the sexual angle tenfold. When I saw this case for the first time that was my first hunch. I'm sure a lot of the students/staff at that school aren't financially scrapped, so money doesn't seem to be a motive. He was brutally over-killed, so it was a crime of passion, but why? He was a kid. My only theories are jealousy, or a sex scandal.

The sex theory isn't outlandish because millions of religious people are gay, or in the closet. I really hate to bring this up, but look at all of the priests who were caught being child molesters, no religious person is above my suspension. In fact, the sexual angle seems to make more sense here because they were in an all male, strict, religious school. Gay sexual relations would've been hidden, or suppressed making them all the more taboo, which would mean the hidden relations were more risky, and dangerous. No one can seriously say no one in that school wasn't gay or experimenting.

I think the reason why the murder was so brutal might have been to make sure he was dead before he could scream for help. Although he was stabbed more than 10 times if I am not mistaken. That would indicate serious rage.

I think a physically strong individual did this. That is for sure.

I think a physically strong individual did this. That is for sure.

Right. Which would lead to it most likely being an adult/young adult. I can't imagine a child Chaim's age having the strength to do this. Also, Chaim's body was moved around quite a bit on the bed, and again, it seems like a child wouldn't have the strength to do this.

I really think an adult from the staff did this. Also seeing as how "hush hush" they were, it's odd not to be helpful to a child who was murdered at your school. Religion be damned, that same killer could have killed someone else, and you're using religion as an excuse to keep quiet? Definitely an adult staff employee.

I wonder if he was checked for sexual assault.

There was a rumor of a homeless man who stayed in the dorm when students were on vacation then got thrown out. A person left a comment that his dad was a policeman connected to the case and overheard him saying they thought it was the homeless person. But the policeman died 15 years ago or so.

The police who opened up the case in 2013 kept saying someone has a "secret." That sounds like it could be a sex secret. The UM broadcast did not give much info at all IMO. I learned about this case right here on this board.

There was a rumor of a homeless man who stayed in the dorm when students were on vacation then got thrown out. A person left a comment that his dad was a policeman connected to the case and overheard him saying they thought it was the homeless person. But the policeman died 15 years ago or so.

The police who opened up the case in 2013 kept saying someone has a "secret." That sounds like it could be a sex secret. The UM broadcast did not give much info at all IMO. I learned about this case right here on this board.

I've read that homeless man theory, and it's completely uncredible. For one, there's no proof of him, or any evidence/testimony that he's done anything else. It's way too coincidental that a homeless man just happened to kill one of the most prized, and privileged students at the school. If he did commit the murder, then what was his motive? Nothing was stolen from Chaim's room, so why would he brutally murder him and not steal anything?

I feel like investigators hit a wall, and just blamed the homeless man when they ran out of leads. Or perhaps the school blamed the homeless man to take the heat off of their backs.

It's bogus.

The police who opened up the case in 2013 kept saying someone has a "secret." That sounds like it could be a sex secret.

I don't think it means it's a sex secret. I think the secret they are referring to is knowing that they killed Chaim.

The motive would be to get revenge on the school for throwing him out by taking out one of their students. Its possible if homeless guy was mentally ill and got lucky. Its hard to find a solid theory in this case. But I definitely think the killer was not staying at the dorm because each student had a roommate except one. So If a student did it there is a good chance their roommate would notice them missing.

This seems like a case that could get solved. But is the killer still alive? The police probably have an idea who did it but not enough evidence.

I don't think anyone seems to know who the killer is other than the killer himself. I guess they think a family member of friend of the killer knows. Thats possible.

it would seem as though they got a tip in 2013 that made them make that statement. For some reason they seem to think student or teacher did it but the candle and open window is not enough to convince me of that. I think if it was a student they probably would have got caught. Teacher also unless something slipped under the radar.

Even the student that went to school with Chaim that came on here had no clue who could have done it. RebZissel who was friends with ex students suspected polish janior but he had alibi and no motive.

What is KEY is it sounded like students and teachers never suspected each other and said if they did they would tell in a heartbeat. Not even a little bit of a suspect.

The motive would be to get revenge on the school for throwing him out by taking out one of their students. Its possible if homeless guy was mentally ill and got lucky. Its hard to find a solid theory in this case. But I definitely think the killer was not staying at the dorm because each student had a roommate except one. So If a student did it there is a good chance their roommate would notice them missing.

This seems like a case that could get solved. But is the killer still alive? The police probably have an idea who did it but not enough evidence.

So let me get this straight. The school throws out a homeless man for staying in the school, and in retaliation, he bypasses a multitude of doors, but for some reason he just chooses Chaim's, and then brutally murders him? The man, being homeless, doesn't decide to take anything seeing as he should have as he was homeless, rearranges Chaim's body on the bed multiple times, lights a fake ritual, opens a window, and then vanishes? Didn't kill anyone else, didn't take anything, didn't destroy any property, but just killed Chaim as revenge?

Huge problem with that theory. He was homeless, and not to be crude but possibly mentally ill. No one reported a homeless man covered in blood, despite him being around the school, and students? He became a suspect years later as an "oh! a homeless guy stayed here once, he might've done it" not "we saw the homeless man we kicked out covered in blood, and carrying around a bloody weapon".

The homeless man theory is no good. I can easily say a maintenance man came to visit that night, but the school didn't pay him the full amount, so he killed Chaim as revenge. See how baseless that is?

I think if it was a student they probably would have got caught. Teacher also unless something slipped under the radar.

What is KEY is it sounded like students and teachers never suspected each other and said if they did they would tell in a heartbeat. Not even a little bit of a suspect.

You have to understand that schools/institutes like these cover for each other all of the time. If a multitude of authority were committing illegal acts against students, you don't think they would have each other's backs? Also, keep in mind that staff probably had their own rooms/freedom to leave the grounds. And if more than one student was in on it, then they would obviously cover for each other.

Chaim possibly had some enemies. There was probably some jealousy, envy, possibly sexual misconduct going on behind those doors. Just because he had no visible enemies, doesn't mean he didn't have any in hiding.

There was a way to get into Chaim's closet without getting into main hallway. The stairs actually led to a closet into his room. There was a side door with a broken lock. But authorities have ruled out an outsider for some reason.

One year ago they said killer likely a student or faculty member. I would love to know how they completely ruled out an outsider. A serial killer would be possible if they were familiar with the dorm possibly a delivery man. (I know its unlikely)

I don't think the candle was lit by killer necessarily. That was few days after murder. This truly is an unsolved mystery. Someone said it was an absent minded Rabbi.

if it was a student it was probably one of the 12th graders on vacation from ths school. They could have sneaked back to the school and did it. Authorities did not investigate them because they were on sabbath. But if they wanted to kill they would not honor any sabbath. The fact that 12th graders who went home for break were not investigated makes it a real possibility. I don't think they investigated this case very well.

But authorities have ruled out an outsider for some reason.

One year ago they said killer likely a student or faculty member. I would love to know how they completely ruled out an outsider. A serial killer would be possible if they were familiar with the dorm possibly a delivery man. (I know its unlikely)

Because of lack of motive. Why would a random outsider brutally murder one student, but not others? It makes sense someone in the school killed him, given how popular/well treated he was. I lean more towards a faculty member who was sexually assaulting him, or he knew something he shouldn't have. A jealous student is also possible.

Makes me wonder about his father though. I wonder if his father's affiliation with the school, or somewhere else got Chaim murdered.

So after watching the 2013 press conference on Chaim Weiss do you guys think this case is close to being solved? Do you think authorities have an idea who did it but not enough evidence? And what do you think the chances are they do solve it?

I think this is one that has a chance of getting solved.

So after watching the 2013 press conference on Chaim Weiss do you guys think this case is close to being solved? Do you think authorities have an idea who did it but not enough evidence? And what do you think the chances are they do solve it?

I think this is one that has a chance of getting solved.

I think that press conference was a plea for help. I don't think anything new has surfaced or something would have happened in the last four years. Short of a confession, I don't see this case being solved.

Because of lack of motive. Why would a random outsider brutally murder one student, but not others? It makes sense someone in the school killed him, given how popular/well treated he was. I lean more towards a faculty member who was sexually assaulting him, or he knew something he shouldn't have. A jealous student is also possible.

Makes me wonder about his father though. I wonder if his father's affiliation with the school, or somewhere else got Chaim murdered.

Do you think there is a good chance this case will get solved? Do you think authorities likely have a good idea who did it but not enough evidence? If it was someone in the school there is a better chance they will get caught.

Do you think there is a good chance this case will get solved? Do you think authorities likely have a good idea who did it but not enough evidence? If it was someone in the school there is a better chance they will get caught.

Unfortunately, no. To mirror what Hambone said, unless we get a confession then it'll remain cold. The problem with this case is that too many students have moved in and out over the years, so the DNA is probably gone. I'm not sure of any leads, but I doubt it, too many closed lips at the school.

Hello to all . Since coming to my attention a few years ago this case has continued to haunt me.
I would like to reiterate what was already suggested here before .
In as much as the police suspect it was a student that committed the murder they should vigorously investigate/re- investigate every student in he upper grade that was supposedly away on an off Shabbos .(vacation weekend)

There are many reasons why this cohort would fit the suspect profile .
(physical strength , possible drivers license to arrive and depart scene )

I will only elaborate on three important ones .
By planning the murder on a weekend when he is supposedly away on an off shabbos the killer gained three things .

1.Near perfect alibi . Killer would only need to have an alibi early Friday evening and any time Saturday day to throw off nearly all suspicion .
2.it is inconceivable that the killer would have an opportunity on that Friday night to shower , change clothing , dispose of weapon and soiled clothing without arousing suspicion . Turning on a shower on Shabbos would cause a mini riot . It is clear the cleanup happened someplace other that the Yeshiva . A thoughtful killer would clearly have to plan the timing so that his absence would not arouse suspicion .
3.Killer has a chance to avoid facing the immediate aftermath and intense investigations where emotion are running high . Killer may have quietly slipped back into yeshiva several days after episode .

I would strongly urge anyone reading this, that has any influence on the investigation to see to it that the upper grade cohort is thoroughly investigated .
1. In particular to examine and reexamine all supposed alibis .
Do not trust only immediate family as alibis .
2.anyone who had a drivers license and access to a vehicle .

My guess is that it is not that large of a cohort and the focus can be narrowed down to a few students pretty quickly .

PS I would not surprised if Halloween played a role in planning . Killer would be free to get from point of transport to yeshiva building wearing a mask thus
avoiding the risk of a random person later identifying him .

Hello to all . Since coming to my attention a few years ago this case has continued to haunt me.
I would like to reiterate what was already suggested here before .
In as much as the police suspect it was a student that committed the murder they should vigorously investigate/re- investigate every student in he upper grade that was supposedly away on an off Shabbos .(vacation weekend)

There are many reasons why this cohort would fit the suspect profile .
(physical strength , possible drivers license to arrive and depart scene )

I will only elaborate on three important ones .
By planning the murder on a weekend when he is supposedly away on an off shabbos the killer gained three things .

1.Near perfect alibi . Killer would only need to have an alibi early Friday evening and any time Saturday day to throw off nearly all suspicion .
2.it is inconceivable that the killer would have an opportunity on that Friday night to shower , change clothing , dispose of weapon and soiled clothing without arousing suspicion . Turning on a shower on Shabbos would cause a mini riot . It is clear the cleanup happened someplace other that the Yeshiva . A thoughtful killer would clearly have to plan the timing so that his absence would not arouse suspicion .
3.Killer has a chance to avoid facing the immediate aftermath and intense investigations where emotion are running high . Killer may have quietly slipped back into yeshiva several days after episode .

I would strongly urge anyone reading this, that has any influence on the investigation to see to it that the upper grade cohort is thoroughly investigated .
1. In particular to examine and reexamine all supposed alibis .
Do not trust only immediate family as alibis .
2.anyone who had a drivers license and access to a vehicle .

My guess is that it is not that large of a cohort and the focus can be narrowed down to a few students pretty quickly .

PS I would not surprised if Halloween played a role in planning . Killer would be free to get from point of transport to yeshiva building wearing a mask thus
avoiding the risk of a random person later identifying him .

Fantastic post, and welcome. :wave:

I'm just going to ask what do you think the motive of a upper student would be?

PS I would not surprised if Halloween played a role in planning . Killer would be free to get from point of transport to yeshiva building wearing a mask thus
avoiding the risk of a random person later identifying him .

This is an excellent point. A Halloween costume would have been perfect attire for the killer. It's possible that the costume could have absorbed all of the blood/tissue from the murder, thus making it easy for the killer to take it off without having to do much of a cleanup.

Fantastic post, and welcome. :wave:

I'm just going to ask what do you think the motive of a upper student would be?

If I had to guess I would say the case is rooted in homosexual activity .
Killer involves victim in homosexual activity .
At some point killers senses that victim is revealing or about to reveal activity to friends or staff.
I order to preserve reputation killers decides on drastic action to silence victim.

I would even go so far as to speculate that the fact that the victim was one of the only students to dorm in a "single bed" room is the key factor that caused the trouble in the first place and then also led to his murder .

I does not take much imagination to realize that an older boy with homosexual tendencies would have strong incentive to target a boy sleeping in a room by himself .
It would be virtually impossible to engage in sexual activity in a multi-bed room without significant risk of discovery .

Unfortunately it is precisely this fact of sleeping solo that also made murder possible without fear of immediate discovery .

If we should take this theory to its full conclusion I would make one more observations.

1.The likelihood of this being a student versus a staff member is very high .
Times have changed since, but in those times an accusation of molestation against a staff member was not that devastating .

In all likelihood the claims was simply not believed or acted on . In the worst case at was dealt with privately .

A not fully mature student however may have felt that he has too much to lose in terms of being ostracized by friends , diminished marriage prospects ..

If the perpetrator had a facade as being a top student, that would make the price of a ruined reputation even more unbearable in his mind .

I would like to again implore the authorities to investigate this cohort thoroughly . I strongly suspect that this group was given only cursory attention at the time of the initial investigation .

I would also like to debunk a claim that it could not be a Orthodox religious person as it was the Sabbath (most forms of transport are forbidden).
I would argue , it is obvious that someone unconcerned with murder would be unconcerned with the sanctity of the sabbath as well .

If I had to guess I would say the case is rooted in homosexual activity .
Killer involves victim in homosexual activity .
At some point killers senses that victim is revealing or about to reveal activity to friends or staff.
I order to preserve reputation killers decides on drastic action to silence victim.

I would even go so far as to speculate that the fact that the victim was one of the only students to dorm in a "single bed" room is the key factor that caused the trouble in the first place and then also led to his murder .

I does not take much imagination to realize that an older boy with homosexual tendencies would have strong incentive to target a boy sleeping in a room by himself .
It would be virtually impossible to engage in sexual activity in a multi-bed room without significant risk of discovery .

Unfortunately it is precisely this fact of sleeping solo that also made murder possible without fear of immediate discovery .

If we should take this theory to its full conclusion I would make one more observations.

1.The likelihood of this being a student versus a staff member is very high .
Times have changed since, but in those times an accusation of molestation against a staff member was not that devastating .

In all likelihood the claims was simply not believed or acted on . In the worst case at was dealt with privately .

A not fully mature student however may have felt that he has too much to lose in terms of being ostracized by friends , diminished marriage prospects ..

If the perpetrator had a facade as being a top student, that would make the price of a ruined reputation even more unbearable in his mind .

I would like to again implore the authorities to investigate this cohort thoroughly . I strongly suspect that this group was given only cursory attention at the time of the initial investigation .

I would also like to debunk a claim that it could not be a Orthodox religious person as it was the Sabbath (most forms of transport are forbidden).
I would argue , it is obvious that someone unconcerned with murder would be unconcerned with the sanctity of the sabbath as well .

Good point, and we're on the same page, but I'll go with a staff member over a student. Point being, staff members either sleep there, or have their own homes. I'm sure it's easier for a staff member with a car, who possibly sleep/lives alone, than it is for a student who lives with his family.

I think it was probably sexual/jealousy based, so I don't discount a student at all, but a staff seems more likely. It'll also be smarter if it was a staff member, because most of the blame would go to students in the surrounding rooms first, before they really looked at staff. Giving them ample time to clean up/discard of evidence.

Would be interesting if it was multiple students in on it together.

I agree that if it was a staff member he would have better access and resources to commit and cover up the murder .
I would not completely discount the possibility of it being a staff member.
However I would point this out .
According to your speculation it is either
1.Staff jealously or
2.Staff reputation cover up

In terms of jealousy .Coming from that world I can tell you that homosexual activity is supremely taboo . Not only the activity but even any discussion of it .
While inevitably some experimentation does happen . It is extremely furtive and especially in a Yeshiva acts of opportunity .
The notion of two people developing long term emotional bonds and the possibility of jealously is very far fetched . Anyone who spent time in a yeshiva and disagrees with this please correct me .

In terms of reputation . I have already stated that an accusation of sexual abuse in those days was not devastating at all . Most often the victim was the one expelled from the school not the staff .

I agree that if it was a staff member he would have better access and resources to commit and cover up the murder .
I would not completely discount the possibility of it being a staff member.
However I would point this out .
According to your speculation it is either
1.Staff jealously or
2.Staff reputation cover up

In terms of jealousy .Coming from that world I can tell you that homosexual activity is supremely taboo . Not only the activity but even any discussion of it .
While inevitably some experimentation does happen . It is extremely furtive and especially in a Yeshiva acts of opportunity .
The notion of two people developing long term emotional bonds and the possibility of jealously is very far fetched . Anyone who spent time in a yeshiva and disagrees with this please correct me .

In terms of reputation . I have already stated that an accusation of sexual abuse in those days was not devastating at all . Most often the victim was the one expelled from the school not the staff .

I meant the two motives were most likely sex or jealousy. I didn't limit jealousy to just staff members, that's why I said I couldn't completely rule out students, because if it's a jealousy motive then most likely it's going to be a student.

In terms of reputation . I have already stated that an accusation of sexual abuse in those days was not devastating at all . Most often the victim was the one expelled from the school not the staff .

That's not for you to say. I assume that the scandal would be devastating for anyone involved. Then on top of that you have to throw out the victim being expelled because he was murdered. This isn't a case where a kid said he was molested without evidence, and the church swept it under the rug. This was a murder. This carries way more weight than a molestation claim without evidence.

I'm sure who ever killed Chaim wouldn't brush this off as no big deal.

Hello to all . Since coming to my attention a few years ago this case has continued to haunt me.
I would like to reiterate what was already suggested here before .
In as much as the police suspect it was a student that committed the murder they should vigorously investigate/re- investigate every student in he upper grade that was supposedly away on an off Shabbos .(vacation weekend)

There are many reasons why this cohort would fit the suspect profile .
(physical strength , possible drivers license to arrive and depart scene )

I will only elaborate on three important ones .
By planning the murder on a weekend when he is supposedly away on an off shabbos the killer gained three things .

1.Near perfect alibi . Killer would only need to have an alibi early Friday evening and any time Saturday day to throw off nearly all suspicion

2.it is inconceivable that the killer would have an opportunity on that Friday night to shower , change clothing , dispose of weapon and soiled clothing without arousing suspicion . Turning on a shower on Shabbos would cause a mini riot . It is clear the cleanup happened someplace other that the Yeshiva . A thoughtful killer would clearly have to plan the timing so that his absence would not arouse suspicion .
3.Killer has a chance to avoid facing the immediate aftermath and intense investigations where emotion are running high . Killer may have quietly slipped back into yeshiva several days after episode .



I would strongly urge anyone reading this, that has any influence on the investigation to see to it that the upper grade cohort is thoroughly investigated .
1. In particular to examine and reexamine all supposed alibis .
Do not trust only immediate family as alibis .
2.anyone who had a drivers license and access to a vehicle .

My guess is that it is not that large of a cohort and the focus can be narrowed down to a few students pretty quickly .

PS I would not surprised if Halloween played a role in planning . Killer would be free to get
from point of transport to yeshiva building wearing a mask thus
avoiding the risk of a random person later identifying him .

Good theory. I agree that someone cleaned up outside of the yeshiva. Another theory could be someone who lived in the neighborhood who is associated with the students. A teenager friend of one of the students possibly related to the students. The police did not investigate the older students who were on vacation or the neighborhood residents.

Welcome, yourhomiebrian! We're happy to have you.

Yes, the Chaim Weiss case is definitely very intriguing. I have no idea who could have killed this youth. I do tend to lean toward the janitor or a fellow student being the perp-- the info I read suggests that Chaim had massive head injuries which would possibly indicate someone was angry with him, as it appeared to be an "overkill" killing.

But seriously. I have no idea. Aileen Wournos was notorious for over-killing her victims and she didn't know any of them.

Do you know what happened to RebZissel? All his posts were deleted. He had some great theories. I wish I was on here when he was posting. He seemed to have inside knowledge. Do you think Rebzissel may return?

Do you know what happened to RebZissel? All his posts were deleted. He had some great theories. I wish I was on here when he was posting. He seemed to have inside knowledge. Do you think Rebzissel may return?

He pops around every once in a while. I agree that he had some great theories on the Weiss case. I appreciated his insights because he had more knowledge of not only the Jewish culture, but also the workings of a school like Chaim's.

I've found that several posters will filter in and out over a period of time... or they're here lurking and just don't have anything to add. So it's hard to answer your question. :)

I may have mentioned this before but omg the music they play in the segment. So cheesy.

I looked up the actor who played Chaim and he looks good

It was pretty clear that Chaim was killed in his sleep. He was stabbed through the head, while he was lying in his bed on his side, with his back to the door. He was also dragged halfway off the bed.

I believe, he was also stabbed more than once.

If you're still around what did you think of investigators reopening case in 2013 and saying that "somebody has a secret and i'd like for that somebody to give me that secret." comment. I don't know what to make of that.

May I ask what surrounds a sexual abuse theory in this case?

May I ask what surrounds a sexual abuse theory in this case?

Hmmm...well, I think it just speculation that Chaim was possibly being sexually abused by an older student, or staff member. I'm not sure what anyone else thinks, but it's possible that him being sexually abused was the reason he was murdered.

Chaim had his own room, plus the overly brutal murder makes it seem personal. Granted, I don't know if he was sexually abused, but it's just a theory.

He also could've been having sexual relations with another student who felt guilty and killed him. I really don't know with this case. There's not too much to go on. But I'm 100% positive it was a staff member/student.

freakbook,

While I have no connections whatsoever to any of the people or events of that tragedy, I think it's safe to say that the terrible irony was that at the time of the murder the idea of sexual abuse of students either by faculty or other students was figuratively and almost literally unthinkable (largely because no one wants to think it could happen). Thus, I think there's a good probability that even law enforcement may have overlooked that possible angle (did the tragic young Weiss's autopsy actually attempt to cover it?).
I also think that time has told that abuse of all kinds flourishes in settings and organizations where folks are laws unto themselves and treated as though they can do no wrong. That's not to say that this MUST have been the case in this particular institution but if it had been there would have been few if any means for victims to have sought help especially from outside authorities had their own hierarchy had valued keeping separated from the outside world and pride more than wanting to protect innocents.

freakbook,

While I have no connections whatsoever to any of the people or events of that tragedy, I think it's safe to say that the terrible irony was that at the time of the murder the idea of sexual abuse of students either by faculty or other students was figuratively and almost literally unthinkable (largely because no one wants to think it could happen). Thus, I think there's a good probability that even law enforcement may have overlooked that possible angle (did the tragic young Weiss's autopsy actually attempt to cover it?).
I also think that time has told that abuse of all kinds flourishes in settings and organizations where folks are laws unto themselves and treated as though they can do no wrong. That's not to say that this MUST have been the case in this particular institution but if it had been there would have been few if any means for victims to have sought help especially from outside authorities had their own hierarchy had valued keeping separated from the outside world and pride more than wanting to protect innocents.

Absolutely. While I don't know what happened to Chaim Weiss, it is highly probable that he was being sexually abused. I'm not saying it couldn't have been consensual, but a religious facility would definitely make this more taboo, or extreme.

I know people get upset when this is said, but a lot of these religious facilities are hotbeds for abuse. As what came out in the media, a lot of people in the religious world who hold power abuse members of their religion. It's possible that Chaim threatened to finally tell, or the abuser thought he was going to tell and killed him.

I do wonder if Chaim was killed by being sexually abused, and the brutal over-killing was just a cover-up? I mean why overkill a 15-year old kid? Sure some students could've been jealous, but this goes beyond jealousy.

I feel that Chaim was being sexually abused, or probably could've been in a sexual relationship (he was young, but some young people do experiment) and the attacker felt some wort of way. Also, if his attacker was having a sexual relationship/abusing him, then maybe the religion made him feel guilty/angry, and it took it on on Chaim?

I can't understand why someone would brutally kill this kid. While I know there's alot of pointing the finger at a certain janitor, or random outsiders I'll say that this is unlikely. Someone student/teacher with intimate knowledge of Chaim, and the fact that he had his own room did this.

The only kid with his OWN room ends up murdered......this isn't a coincidence.

I don't think this has ever been mentioned on the board, but it's recently been revealed that the Weiss family received an envelope addressed to Chaim in 1994 containing an Easter card containing a bad pun about dying. This even contains a photo of said card:
http://gifteringotham.com/exclusive-new-details-starting-emerge-chaim-weiss-murder-case/

In Torah law, you may not convict a murderer unless you have two witnesses. But it's important to point out that this is only when the courts and the country is run by Orthodox Jews, something not found in the world today, (the government in Israel is secular). Even if it was run by Orthodox Jews, the 'two witnesses' rule is only to put someone to death. The rules of putting someone in jail is pretty much the same to American law. if you have strong evidence that someone is a threat to society, or perpetrated a murder you can lock him up. Therefore I'm pretty confident the faculty told the students that if they knew anything, they had to tell the police, (even if the 'secular American courts' would end up giving the killer the chair). I highly doubt the strong burden of proof requited in jewish law would be a factor at all in this case.

I had never heard of the Easter greeting, until your podcast this morning. If it is from the killer, which I somewhat doubt, then I would definitely persuade me even more to there being something sexual/ taboo behind this.

But if I were the killer, and had I gone twenty around thirty years without being caught, the LAST thing I would do would be to reopen the case by sending a greeting card to the family.

I don't see any of this as being anti-Semitic, because if it were, I don't know why the perpetrator would hate on a 15 year old in a dorm, when an easier target would probably be an orthodox Jew on the street.

One element I am curious about, given that his father had a history with diamonds, would have been whether or not his father had a business enemy, that might have taken his aggression out on Chaim.

But all in all, if I had to choose, I would say that my gut says something sexually devious is behind all of this. Perhaps not with an authority figure, but it could have been another student, as mentioned previously by other members.

It sounds like they may solve this case based on what the beginning of the article says.

The Chicken that gets too old to lay an egg will dye joke if it was written by the killer makes me think the killer is cocky and arrogant. And a sociopath.

I don't think this has ever been mentioned on the board, but it's recently been revealed that the Weiss family received an envelope addressed to Chaim in 1994 containing an Easter card containing a bad pun about dying. This even contains a photo of said card:
http://gifteringotham.com/exclusive-new-details-starting-emerge-chaim-weiss-murder-case/
When I read the message on this postcard the first thing that came to my mind is that "chicken" is a slang term for a young male prostitute. I don't believe Chiam Weiss was working as a prostitute, but could this message be that he was being molested by another male and he got too old for the abusers preference, thus he killed him? Its a sick note but could it be a cryptic confession or revel? The author being either the abuser who someone who knew what happened.

I don't think this has ever been mentioned on the board, but it's recently been revealed that the Weiss family received an envelope addressed to Chaim in 1994 containing an Easter card containing a bad pun about dying. This even contains a photo of said card:
http://gifteringotham.com/exclusive-new-details-starting-emerge-chaim-weiss-murder-case/


:eek: :eek: :eek:

People are freaking awful.

When I read the message on this postcard the first thing that came to my mind is that "chicken" is a slang term for a young male prostitute. I don't believe Chiam Weiss was working as a prostitute, but could this message be that he was being molested by another male and he got too old for the abusers preference, thus he killed him? Its a sick note but could it be a cryptic confession or revel? The author being either the abuser who someone who knew what happened.

Interesting. Although there was no evidence of sexual abuse before he was killed.

Interesting. Although there was no evidence of sexual abuse before he was killed.

The other option is that Chaim became aware of other kids being abused. He could have threatened to say something or maybe the perp was just afraid he might say something, and thus killed him.

On other sites there are a lot of people who think that a school janitor (who is Polish) may have killed Chaim. Theories range from sexual abuse to Chaim pulling one too many pranks on the janitor. I certainly don't think it was a random killing.

The other option is that Chaim became aware of other kids being abused. He could have threatened to say something or maybe the perp was just afraid he might say something, and thus killed him.

On other sites there are a lot of people who think that a school janitor (who is Polish) may have killed Chaim. Theories range from sexual abuse to Chaim pulling one too many pranks on the janitor. I certainly don't think it was a random killing.

I know. This is probably the most interesting case on
UM. I think UM did a poor job presenting this case. It is only from what I've read on here that makes this case so interesting.

The janitor makes sense. It's hard to know if his alibi is really solid. If he left the base would people even notice? I would love to hear cmmze and Rebzissel reaction if and when this case ever got solved. And I think there is a good chance it will get solved.

The other option is that Chaim became aware of other kids being abused. He could have threatened to say something or maybe the perp was just afraid he might say something, and thus killed him.

On other sites there are a lot of people who think that a school janitor (who is Polish) may have killed Chaim. Theories range from sexual abuse to Chaim pulling one too many pranks on the janitor. I certainly don't think it was a random killing.

I know this janitor has been discussed a lot as the possible culprit, but the police officially stated that he was ruled out as a suspect in this article from 2015:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/investigation-continues-1986-halloween-murder-article-1.2417285

Police seem pretty convinced that the killer is either a student or a faculty member. Your theory about Chaim knowing about other kids being abused, even if he wasn't an abuse victim himself, is an interesting possibility.

I know this janitor has been discussed a lot as the possible culprit, but the police officially stated that he was ruled out as a suspect in this article from 2015:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/investigation-continues-1986-halloween-murder-article-1.2417285

Police seem pretty convinced that the killer is either a student or a faculty member. Your theory about Chaim knowing about other kids being abused, even if he wasn't an abuse victim himself, is an interesting possibility.

Always thought the janitor suspicion was bull. Something doesn't add up when none of the school wants to cooperate, but conveniently blames a janitor. Seems like a scum school with something to hide.

I know this janitor has been discussed a lot as the possible culprit, but the police officially stated that he was ruled out as a suspect in this article from 2015:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/investigation-continues-1986-halloween-murder-article-1.2417285

Police seem pretty convinced that the killer is either a student or a faculty member. Your theory about Chaim knowing about other kids being abused, even if he wasn't an abuse victim himself, is an interesting possibility.

Thanks for the article link, Robin. I didn’t realize the janitor had been cleared officially.

Always thought the janitor suspicion was bull. Something doesn't add up when none of the school wants to cooperate, but conveniently blames a janitor. Seems like a scum school with something to hide.

on the first few pages of this thread a guy named ccmze or something close to that said he went to that school and was in the dorm when Chaim was killed. He talked about how to students did cooperate. He said the authorities blew up when they found out a fact that students felt was irrelevant to the murder. Something about internal politics within the faculty that had to go to the religious top dogs.

I wonder if the student's (who claims that someone opened his door and quickly shut it) roommate could possibly be responsible. It would make sense as to why the door was opened and then quickly shut. He realized that he woke the roommate up, and shut the door quickly.

I wonder if the student's (who claims that someone opened his door and quickly shut it) roommate could possibly be responsible. It would make sense as to why the door was opened and then quickly shut. He realized that he woke the roommate up, and shut the door quickly.

Interesting thought. Maybe he was going back into his room to change and/or clean up and noticed he woke up his roommate so he quickly shut the door? I wonder if the student who woke up, glanced over at his roommate's bed to see if he was there or not?

Interesting thought. Maybe he was going back into his room to change and/or clean up and noticed he woke up his roommate so he quickly shut the door? I wonder if the student who woke up, glanced over at his roommate's bed to see if he was there or not?

The segment implied that he thought it was his roommate leaving/returning and simply went back to bed. I don't think he ever fully woke up and looked around.

A new article just got published about this case with a lot of new information:
http://pix11.com/2017/11/21/exclusive-dad-of-15-year-old-killed-in-li-yeshiva-dorm-haunted-by-mysterious-events-leading-up-to-1986-murder/

Chaim's father is claiming that in the months preceding his death, Chaim had a meeting with Rabbi Avrom Cooper, the school principal, but never told him what the conversation was about. There was also an incident where Chaim was attending the school's summer camp and called his father crying and saying he wanted to go home, but never told him what this was about either.

They recently tried to interview Rabbi Cooper about this, but he refused to speak. This is really looking more and more like someone from the school was responsible from the murder and the faculty helped cover it up.