The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[packers stem]

Warren must have felt that the GSG represented a threat to locals, so its kind of excusable in that context. But then......we know photos were taken at at least 1 crime scene, why wouldn't they record the actual message as it was on the wall with an image?

It was never going to be a threat ..... because nobody could possibly walk past and read it , then ask themselves if it had something to do with JTR...... there's a presumption on my part that Warren would not wave the rag at them here

The only threat of riot was Berner Street where the met had locked up the entirety of the club as suspects with crowds outside baying for blood .He didn't seem overly concerned about that .

It wasn't photographed, purely and simply , because he didn't want it photographed .
We don't know why
All requests were made .
He could have removed Juwes
He could have removed the whole top line
He could have got one bobby to stand in front of it for half an hour until it was light enough

Lets stop making excuses for this man

[Michael W Richards]

Whether or not it had anything to do with JtR has nothing to do with what I posted, whether it accused Jews of something they were evading blame for, in an area rife with antisemitism almost reaching a boiling point. That's why, in a doorway leading to residents that were almost 100 Jewish, in that same pressurized area, it was indeed a potential threat to those locals if an anti-Semite got wind of it.

[packers stem]

Whether or not it had anything to do with JtR has nothing to do with what I posted, whether it accused Jews of something they were evading blame for, in an area rife with antisemitism almost reaching a boiling point. That's why, in a doorway leading to residents that were almost 100 Jewish, in that same pressurized area, it was indeed a potential threat to those locals if an anti-Semite got wind of it.

So how many riots ensued when the wording was released at the inquest and the press were posting like there was no tomorrow ?
And how on earth was any anti-Semite going to spot this tiny itsy bitsy scribble on a wall in a building almost completely occupied by Jews ?
Remember , he would have to push Warren , Arnold and whoever else out of the way to be able to get close enough to read it ...... this is presuming that he could indeed read .
The sequence of events would be extraordinary to say the least .
Write it down in half inch writing , tape it to a wall and see who can read it from 5 yards .
You've swallowed Warren's drivel hook line and sinker it seems .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that it was a mistake to have erased the graffito because it might have provided a handwriting match but I cannot see anything sinister in Warren and Arnold having it erased? I just think that it was a knee-jerk reaction.

[APerno]

I doubt that the walls were festooned with graffiti, but given that Long only found the message as he was searching the passage for blood I don't think that it was a particularly stand-out graffito either. Also, I've always had a bit of a problem squaring Charles Warren's statement that the graffito was "on the jamb of the open archway visible to anybody in the street" with Long's saying that the apron was "lying in the passage".

On a different point, as I was double-checking what long said, I noticed in the Daily News that, at the end of the session, "the jury presented their fees to Mrs Phillips, daughter of the murdered woman". I hadn't read that before, but I'm glad I did, and what a nice thing to do.

When it comes to its location I would go with PC Long over Warren. Long only had cause to lie about the time of its appearance not its location. Once the newspapers blew up with the graffito story Warren had no choice but to claim that it was visible from the street or he looks even a bigger fool.

I am in the US and I really can't understand the visual of the missive being written on a 'jamb of the open archway'. I wish there was a surviving photo of the apartment entrance way so I could get a better mental picture.

That is a nice story regarding the jury; was it Kate's daughter or Stride's?

[APerno]

I am a naysayer regarding connection but I want to give a nod to Packers Stem regarding the contemporaneous attitude.

We do need to acknowledge that the men on the scene, the police, were all in that there was a connection and that has to be respected (although at that time and place I would not considerer them trained observers the way cops today are so trained).

[Sam Flynn]

That is a nice story regarding the jury; was it Kate's daughter or Stride's?

Kate's - and it was a nice gesture

[Joshua Rogan]

When it comes to its location I would go with PC Long over Warren. Long only had cause to lie about the time of its appearance not its location. Once the newspapers blew up with the graffito story Warren had no choice but to claim that it was visible from the street or he looks even a bigger fool.

I don't think you have to choose between them. Long's "above" may be technically correct (in the same way as Prater lived above Kelly's room, albeit not directly over) whilst still being loose enough for Warren's jamb to be the actual location. It really depends on where abouts inside the passage the apron piece was left.

I am in the US and I really can't understand the visual of the missive being written on a 'jamb of the open archway'. I wish there was a surviving photo of the apartment entrance way so I could get a better mental picture.

There is a couple of photos on this site;

https://photos.casebook.org/displayimage8998.html?album=12&pos=0

That is a nice story regarding the jury; was it Kate's daughter or Stride's?

Kate's, I believe.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't think you have to choose between them. Long's "above" may be technically correct (in the same way as Prater lived above Kelly's room, albeit not directly over) whilst still being loose enough for Warren's jamb to be the actual location. It really depends on where abouts inside the passage the apron piece was left.

It may be useful to note that Long says the apron was "in the passage leading to the stairs", as opposed to "just inside the entrance" or "in the doorway".

[Wickerman]

Warren had realised the outcry in the press that his imaginary riot scenario had created , he was a laughing stock .
He then tried to cover himself and make it's removal appear justified by making out it was visible from the street .... What he had forgotten is that it was supposed to be 3/4 inch capitals with the rest "in proportion" ( so half inch writing ) .

So you think that being caught out in a lie is better than being laughed at?
What I think you are missing is the fact many officers saw the graffiti, and where it was located. Warren placing it somewhere else is only going to make him look a fool.

The letter by Warren that mentions the location of the graffiti was dated 6 Nov., and addressed to the Home Office. This was to Matthews who Warren was already threatening to resign over restraints he did not agree with.
Two days later he resigned.
So, it is quite false to try invent some excuse for him lying to save his job, he didn't want the job by that time.

[packers stem]

What I think you are missing is the fact many officers saw the graffiti, and where it was located. Warren placing it somewhere else is only going to make him look a fool.

Which officers in particular do you think were likely to be copied in with Warren's 6th Nov letter ?

[Wickerman]

Which officers in particular do you think were likely to be copied in with Warren's 6th Nov letter ?

Why do you think anyone needs to be copied?
Warren wasn't the only officer to communicate with the Home Office.

[packers stem]

Why do you think anyone needs to be copied?
Warren wasn't the only officer to communicate with the Home Office.

Because you seem to believe that Warren giving the location as the jamb when it wasn't would see him "caught out in a lie" .

Halse , Arnold , Long would not be forwarded copies of the communication .
Mathews had better things to do than scrutinise inquest testimony and reports to the lengths that we do and anyway , he wouldn't take the word of the others over Warren and why would he care other than the wording .
Seems you've fallen into the same trap

[packers stem]

The idea that the wording was in public view was Warren's alone .
The knowledge of this location Warren specified was for him and Mathews , nobody else ..... until recent times

[Wickerman]

Now it looks like you've realized Warren was not trying to save his job, so you're looking for another angle.

There's no point in leaving a message where it can't be seen from the street, if the killer wrote it.
The rag being found at the base of the pillar is "in the building", it isn't out on the street, or on the footway (footpath). Like the graffiti, if it was deep inside the building it can't be seen, so why leave something as an attention-getter that can't be seen by anyone passing by?
That makes no sense.

Personally, I don't think this graffiti was written by the killer, but if it was he couldn't write it inside where it's totally dark at that time of night. On an outside wall is the obvious choice but as this means he could be seen then just inside the archway, and using the light from a streetlamp, he can write whatever he chooses on the jamb where he is also partially hidden from view.

Just apply some common sense.