The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

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

The City force also reported to the Home Office, from Halse, McWilliam through Major Smith.
Just accept it, Warren told the truth. There's far too much preoccupation on these boards with witnesses "lying".
What I'd like to know is if anyone has a real theory about this case. One that doesn't involve "lying witnesses", any takers?

[APerno]

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

And you have concluded that he didn't need to lie to Matthews?

He had been F-ing things up since Trafalgar Square; Matthews was likely having to spend a considerable amount of political capital just to keep him in position.

He needed to lie to Matthews; Home Secretary should have dumped his incompetent ass back in '87.

[packers stem]

The City force also reported to the Home Office, from Halse, McWilliam through Major Smith.
Just accept it, Warren told the truth. There's far too much preoccupation on these boards with witnesses "lying".
What I'd like to know is if anyone has a real theory about this case. One that doesn't involve "lying witnesses", any takers?

Sorry to disappoint you but no , I'm not the type to accept Warren and believe the others were lying just because he was a higher authority .
Only one person wanted to cover his arse on this .
Even had this miniscule passage of writing been on the jamb and not in the passageway then it would still have been covered by a bobby simply standing there .
No idea why you're trying to defend him but I won't join you with that .

Why would Halse have been checking for chalk dust on the ground if it was written on the jamb where the ground would have been wet ?
He didn't .
He checked the ground inside the passageway because that's where the writing was .
it's fairly simple

[packers stem]

And you have concluded that he didn't need to lie to Matthews?

He had been F-ing things up since Trafalgar Square; Matthews was likely having to spend a considerable amount of political capital just to keep him in position.

He needed to lie to Matthews; Home Secretary should have dumped his incompetent ass back in '87.

Hi , no you've misunderstood me
He DID lie to Mathews because he needed Mathews to be convinced that the writing would be visible from someone passing by , admittedly by use of a telescope or binoculars

[Wickerman]

.......
Even had this miniscule passage of writing been on the jamb and not in the passageway then it would still have been covered by a bobby simply standing there .
No idea why you're trying to defend him but I won't join you with that .

I'm not disputing there were a variety of ways to cover it up. Rubbing it off was overkill, but that is not what we are talking about.

Why would Halse have been checking for chalk dust on the ground if it was written on the jamb where the ground would have been wet ?

Who's saying he did?
Unless that graffiti was written something like 6 inch off the ground there wouldn't be any chalk dust to see.
He said he didn't notice any, obviously because he didn't look.
Chalk dust would be in any cracks on the bricks directly below the graffiti if there were any at all. Not on the ground, it blows away long before it gets there

He checked the ground inside the passageway because that's where the writing was .
it's fairly simple

He wasn't checking for chalk dust though, blood spots maybe.

[Wickerman]

Hi , no you've misunderstood me
He DID lie to Mathews because he needed Mathews to be convinced that the writing would be visible from someone passing by , admittedly by use of a telescope or binoculars

Yet, he had no reason to lie.

[Joshua Rogan]

He wasn't checking for chalk dust though, blood spots maybe.

Daily Telegraph 12 Oct;
" I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground, though I did look about to see if a knife could be found."

[Sam Flynn]

Chalk dust would ... Not [be] on the ground, it blows away long before it gets there

That would depend on air currents/breezes, the direction of the airflow, how exposed/sheltered that part of the wall/dado was. I don't think it's a certainty that all the dust would have blown away before it hit the ground.

[Wickerman]

That would depend on air currents/breezes, the direction of the airflow, how exposed/sheltered that part of the wall/dado was. I don't think it's a certainty that all the dust would have blown away before it hit the ground.

Anyone can test it. Even in no breeze I'll bet you can't see any chalk dust.
With respect to height, all we can assume is that the graffiti was not over 48" from the ground. The Daily News reported this was the height of the black Dado. So, lets scribble a dozen or so words about 36"-48" from the ground in a good rounded schoolboy hand, with letters no more than 3/4" tall and see how much chalk dust is beneath it on the ground an hour or so later.
Anyone having a slow day?

[packers stem]

Anyone can test it. Even in no breeze I'll bet you can't see any chalk dust.
With respect to height, all we can assume is that the graffiti was not over 48" from the ground. The Daily News reported this was the height of the black Dado. So, lets scribble a dozen or so words about 36"-48" from the ground in a good rounded schoolboy hand, with letters no more than 3/4" tall and see how much chalk dust is beneath it on the ground an hour or so later.
Anyone having a slow day?

The whole point of mentioning the chalk dust is that it wouldn't be mentioned as a possibility unless the writing was written above a dry flooring .
It would be completely irrelevant at the foot of the jamb as the ground would have been soaked and Halse would have mentioned as such

[Sam Flynn]

Anyone can test it. Even in no breeze I'll bet you can't see any chalk dust.

Bet you won't. When you write on a blackboard, you can see particles of residual chalk falling against the background board itself, like a shower of fine rain, until it gathers in the "gutter" at the bottom of the board. When you wipe the blackboard, you see much the same thing happening, even though you're flinging the particles about with the cloth/board-rubber and your arms are creating a draught - the particles end up at the bottom of the board.

Writing on a brick surface as opposed to a board, I daresay that bigger particles would be flaked off the chalk itself, which - being heavier - would be even less likely to be carried away by whatever zephyrs were wafting in (the sheltered doorways of) Goulston Street that night. A message as comparatively long as "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" could have generated a reasonable amount of chalk débris, some of which should still have been detectable on the floor if the message was truly fresh.

Perhaps it was, but nobody thought of looking for it.

[APerno]

Anyone can test it. Even in no breeze I'll bet you can't see any chalk dust.
With respect to height, all we can assume is that the graffiti was not over 48" from the ground. The Daily News reported this was the height of the black Dado. So, lets scribble a dozen or so words about 36"-48" from the ground in a good rounded schoolboy hand, with letters no more than 3/4" tall and see how much chalk dust is beneath it on the ground an hour or so later.
Anyone having a slow day?

I understand your point and I suspect I agree, but trying to test something like that would involve too many variables. The size of the chalk would have a major effect on the event; along with how fast he was writing, the type of surface, the condition of the surface, not to mention the already mentioned wind and dew.

The fact that someone looked for dust is interesting, it says they were trying to understand what they were looking at and were not just jumping to conclusions based solely on PC Long's claim.

[packers stem]

Yet, he had no reason to lie.

Other than that everyone , press especially , jury spokesman even were astonished that he scrubbed it .
The coroner wasn't shy about it , no worry over riots there
As has been pointed out already
He lied to cover himself , he wanted others to believe he had some sort of reasonable grounds for removing the message .
To do this , the people he answered to needed to hear that it was on view to passers by

[etenguy]

Other than that everyone , press especially , jury spokesman even were astonished that he scrubbed it .
The coroner wasn't shy about it , no worry over riots there

I agree that the reason given seems overly cautious to a lot of us now, and even to many at the time. But Sir Charles Warren may have been hyper sensitive to the potential for riots given the criticism that came his way a year earlier with the bloody sunday riots.

Alternatively he may have seen meaning in the graffitto that caused him to get it scrubbed off. The freemason conspiracy relies on such a scenario, but it may have been something else entirely.

As has been pointed out already
He lied to cover himself , he wanted others to believe he had some sort of reasonable grounds for removing the message .
To do this , the people he answered to needed to hear that it was on view to passers by

Maybe - however, the graffitto was visible to some, even if inside, eg the people that lived there. So Warren was not lying about that. He may have over-egged the cake, but it is possible he considered that to be his truth. He put out a dictat that no-one was to be allowed to enter the crime scene of any other future murder until he arrived on the scene (a seemingly prescient choice of words given the next murder did occur in a building - the only one that did). Was this to avoid any message left by the killer from becoming public?

Equally, he may have simply fabricated his riot concerns to justify his decision, but had alternative reasons that we can only speculate about.

[Leanne]

[QUOTE=packers stem;n714973]

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 . [QUOTE]
The threat was all over the East End of London. Daylight was breaking and Goulston Street was soon to be crowded with the setting up of market stalls and Jewish plus English market shoppers. There was a fear that if they merely covered it up, someone would rip the cover down. It wasn't photographed because they didn't want to wait for the photographer to arrive.

I am not defending the decision to erase the whole thing and not just the word Jewes, but I am just relaying the reasons I found.