Tweet
[QUOTE=Simon Wood;209303]
Let us instead consider all the complicated and convoluted excuses that have been weaved for why this crock of nonsense should be believed.
/QUOTE]
Hello Simon,
the same consideration could be given to Halse's comment that the infamous chalked writing was 'recently done'. Now how can a policeman possibly tell how old the writing is in a dark entrance on dark brickwork with only a hand held lamp to guide hìm? If Halse hadnt been there at any time before on his beat- he cannot possibly know the 'age' of the chalk writing?
Ask any teacher to walk into a schoolroom he hasnt previously visited and tell you the age of the chalk writing on the board- in broad daylight. He cant. Unless
a) the writing gives a 'time' clue- "Kilroy was'ere 30-9-88"
b) he had previously seen the writing (which raises all sorts of questions)
c) he saw Kilroy writing it at some time
d) he wrote it himself
e) he is an expert analasist in chalk writing.
and another little point that jabs away at Ritz-sized strange commentary.Our dear old friend Chief Inspector Donald Swanson wrote of the chalk writing, in his report to the Home Office 6-11-88, in which HE states, according to the "facts known to the Met Police respecting the murder in Mitre square and writing on the wall" the following:-
"Upon the discovery of the blurred chalk writing on the wall..."
Now- the writing- which Swanson had also deemed the 2nd word (juwes) mis-spelled, is now blurred. Lets suppose the ever reliable Swanson, who had been specifically appointed to be in charge of the whole investigation- with every report at his fingertips(nothing was to be sent anywhere without Swanson seeing it first)- is correct. The writing was blurred. Can somebody please explain to THIS daily chalk user how Halse could possibly call blurred chalk writing as "recently done"?
Sir Charles Warren, in HIS report of the same day (Lög and Arnold wrote their reports the same day btw)- wrote:-
"... i arrived at Leman St station shortly before 5am..I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once... A discussion took place whether the writing covld be left covered up or otherwise ...could be left for an hour until it could be photographed.." " the writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once"
Well Mr.Warren- according to Inspector James McWilliam of the City Polie in HIS report to the Home Office dated 29-10-88, he states that he ordered the writing to be photographed WAY before Warren arrived at GS, whilst at Mitre Square in the company of Major Smith and others- having arrived there via Bishopsgate Station from the Detective Office, where he arrived at 3.45am.
Oh, and Mr. Warren- if the writing WAS visible to "anybody" from the street- they had damnf good eyesight- given the size of the writing- ESPECIALLY if the man in charge said it was blurred! And one more thing Mr Warren- ever heard of a policeman or two to stand guard in front of the covered writing whilst waiting for a photographer?
"They evidently want to tell us nothing" - CM Oct 30
hope you enjoyed that lot Simon. The Ritz? Make that Tower Bridge.
Kindly
Phil
".
Let us instead consider all the complicated and convoluted excuses that have been weaved for why this crock of nonsense should be believed.
/QUOTE]
Hello Simon,
the same consideration could be given to Halse's comment that the infamous chalked writing was 'recently done'. Now how can a policeman possibly tell how old the writing is in a dark entrance on dark brickwork with only a hand held lamp to guide hìm? If Halse hadnt been there at any time before on his beat- he cannot possibly know the 'age' of the chalk writing?
Ask any teacher to walk into a schoolroom he hasnt previously visited and tell you the age of the chalk writing on the board- in broad daylight. He cant. Unless
a) the writing gives a 'time' clue- "Kilroy was'ere 30-9-88"
b) he had previously seen the writing (which raises all sorts of questions)
c) he saw Kilroy writing it at some time
d) he wrote it himself
e) he is an expert analasist in chalk writing.
and another little point that jabs away at Ritz-sized strange commentary.Our dear old friend Chief Inspector Donald Swanson wrote of the chalk writing, in his report to the Home Office 6-11-88, in which HE states, according to the "facts known to the Met Police respecting the murder in Mitre square and writing on the wall" the following:-
"Upon the discovery of the blurred chalk writing on the wall..."
Now- the writing- which Swanson had also deemed the 2nd word (juwes) mis-spelled, is now blurred. Lets suppose the ever reliable Swanson, who had been specifically appointed to be in charge of the whole investigation- with every report at his fingertips(nothing was to be sent anywhere without Swanson seeing it first)- is correct. The writing was blurred. Can somebody please explain to THIS daily chalk user how Halse could possibly call blurred chalk writing as "recently done"?
Sir Charles Warren, in HIS report of the same day (Lög and Arnold wrote their reports the same day btw)- wrote:-
"... i arrived at Leman St station shortly before 5am..I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once... A discussion took place whether the writing covld be left covered up or otherwise ...could be left for an hour until it could be photographed.." " the writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once"
Well Mr.Warren- according to Inspector James McWilliam of the City Polie in HIS report to the Home Office dated 29-10-88, he states that he ordered the writing to be photographed WAY before Warren arrived at GS, whilst at Mitre Square in the company of Major Smith and others- having arrived there via Bishopsgate Station from the Detective Office, where he arrived at 3.45am.
Oh, and Mr. Warren- if the writing WAS visible to "anybody" from the street- they had damnf good eyesight- given the size of the writing- ESPECIALLY if the man in charge said it was blurred! And one more thing Mr Warren- ever heard of a policeman or two to stand guard in front of the covered writing whilst waiting for a photographer?
"They evidently want to tell us nothing" - CM Oct 30
hope you enjoyed that lot Simon. The Ritz? Make that Tower Bridge.
Kindly
Phil
".
Comment