The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

I didn't say that, but to answer your question-None, since they wiped it off.

A less obvious clue, eventhough they wiped it, was that the killer was gentile, trying to throw suspicion on jews- several high ranking police thought as much.

Speculation.
The police are not going to look for a gentile killer on the strength of one interpretation of the graffiti.
The police do not know who wrote it, when it was written, or why.

There was a good reason I asked that question.
You suggested that the police (obviously, in your opinion), thought it could be a clue.
As the origin of the graffiti was never uncovered, any clue that could be derived from it was unknown - therefore, this graffiti was of no help at all to the investigation.
A provenance has to be established first, before any potential clue can be obtained.

Is it yet another coincidence that GSG graffiti is so similar in content and the confusion it caused to the shout of Lipski at the earlier murder of Stride?

But surely that is a subjective interpretation.

One "obvious" use if they had preserved in a photo was they could have compared it to other handwriting from the letters. or handwriting from suspects.

Detective 101, really wick.

Might I suggest you consult a handwriting analyst on that point?

When writing on a wall in chalk you use your wrist & elbow more extensively than when you write on paper with a pen, where the dominant input is finger movement. That being the case you cannot compare penned letters to graffiti written on a wall.

See, Handwriting Analysis for Dummies.

[Batman]

Contemporary facts? - that's a bit vague.
As we are all very familiar with the known 'facts', which specific ones are you referring to?




I'm surprised you brought that 6 Nov. report up due to the fact Swanson described it as "blurred chalk writing"

That appears to contradict the words of Det. Halse at the inquest. So here we have Swanson offering a detail that suggests the writing was not fresh.
Do you want to accept Swanson's words or not?

You are saying blurred = old and thus creating a conflict where there is none.

It was just fresh obscure handwriting.

Hard to read. Hard to copy and people made mistakes.

It says nothing about it being old. That's your inference, which you are free to make, but end up saying the opposite to what the investigators are telling us.

Again in the mind of the investigators there is no confusion and the failture of the objectors to show one remains. They where all on the same page about this and nobody has demonstrated otherwise, ever.

ever..

[Wickerman]

Again in the mind of the investigators there is no confusion and the failture of the objectors to show one remains. They where all on the same page about this and nobody has demonstrated otherwise, ever.

ever..

I notice you avoid giving us this "page" that you say the investigators were on.
Where do they state their position, and who is your source?

I am saying the police never stated their belief in the graffiti being by the killer, you appear to suggest otherwise, - show me.

[Batman]

I gave my source above. The latest edition has them around page 200.

Its laughable, absolutely hilarious, to think they had an on the spot debate about photographing it or only partially removing some of it, if they didn't feel it was evidence!

That's how ridiculous the deniars are getting over this. Now they want us to believe they debated over photographing just yet another piece if graffiti.

[Wickerman]

They should have photographed it regardless, in order to analyze it later to see if it held any clue.
Whether it held a clue or not could not be determined in the dark that morning.

The mistake you are making is in assuming the police already determined it was a clue, this is not true.

[Batman]

So now you want to lead me to believe they debated photographing something that they thought was irrelevant for latter analysis?

You want me to believe Warren didn't think he would be rubbing out evidence?

You want me to believe the suggestions of partially removing some words was over something they thought wasn't evidence nor related?

And Warren wrote a letter explaining his actions over removing non-evidence?

Back flips, somersaults, is there no end to the circus gsg deniars perform to avoid the simple truth. They thought it was evidence.

[Wickerman]

I really don't care what you believe.
Everything you have told me is your conjecture, your interpretation, what you prefer to believe.
I am merely bringing your flights of fancy down to earth.

The reality is, until the police found out who wrote the graffiti and when it was written, it is of no more use to them as evidence than a common street sign would be.

[lynn cates]

sensible

Hello Jon. Quite.

Your sensible posts always stand in stark contrast to the silliness which infects a few threads.

Cheers.
LC

[J6123]

Was that sort of graffiti common in those doorways on that street? I presume the police canvassed the area and made enquiries, so whatever conclusion they came to might be the right one. Personally I find it unlikely that the killer, possibly soiled with blood and faeces after a brutal and frenzied murder, and with the police hot on his trail, would have had writing graffiti on his agenda.

Then again, if the killer found himself with a little more time at his disposal than he was expecting, and he had chalk, and he was a gentile, and in that moment he just fancied having a little stab at the Jews.....who knows.

I would vote unlikely, but not totally convinced.

[Batman]

I really don't care what you believe.
Everything you have told me is your conjecture, your interpretation, what you prefer to believe.
I am merely bringing your flights of fancy down to earth.

The reality is, until the police found out who wrote the graffiti and when it was written, it is of no more use to them as evidence than a common street sign would be.

You asked for evidence they where on the same page about its origins. What they believed. Its unanimous. The only investigator missing input was Abberline. You couldn't have asked for a more unanimous topic they agreed on.

Everyone else from Warren, through Swanson and down to Long and Halse have said there was an intense debate over the destruction of evidence.

You want us to believe they debated over destroying non-evidence that they didn't believe was related at the time.

You want us to believe they wanted to photograph a meaningless unconnected common bit of graffiti.

Go sell that one to someone more gullible than I.

[Batman]

Hello Jon. Quite.

Your sensible posts always stand in stark contrast to the silliness which infects a few threads.

Cheers.
LC

Thousands of posts of mostly ad hominems are nothing more than disdain for reason.

Your criticism can be dismissed because you have offered nothing to contradict the investigators over their belief that they where destroying evidence.

Wickermans argument is that if he says it isn't evidence then this retroactively means they didn't think it was evidence either... Despite their panic over destroying evidence.

Then again I would need someone to stroke my back too if I got myself into such a tangle.

I have said nothing new. It's been there since 1888 and isn't going away any time soon either no matter how many want it too for their mad Jew guess at a suspect.

[Wickerman]

At no time does any police official say the killer wrote it, but by the same token neither does anyone say the killer did not write it.
All your huffing and puffing will not change that.

So long as the provenance was never established, it was never described as connected with the murder. It was just 'there'.

[Monty]

Only once does it state in the official files that the killer wrote it, and that was Inspector Moore in a 96 summary.

Monty

[Wickerman]

Only once does it state in the official files that the killer wrote it, and that was Inspector Moore in a 96 summary.

Monty

Thankyou Neil, indeed he does, I mentioned that instance earlier in the thread in reply to John G.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=333485&postcount=442

[Monty]

Thankyou Neil, indeed he does, I mentioned that instance earlier in the thread in reply to John G.
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=442

I hadn't the desire to trawl through the thread, sorry.

Monty