Graffiti on middle-right pew
Investigation
Compiled by: Glyn, Chair
Interviews conducted by: Geoff, Caretaker
---
- Background
Following the discovery of damage to a pew in the middle row on the right-hand side of the Chapel, an informal investigation was undertaken.
The damage consists of the phrase: “Mary woz ere, Xmas 14” scratched into the rear backrest of the pew.
The purpose of this report is to record statements from persons connected with the Chapel and to make a recommendation as to the most likely explanation.
- Statement: Mary Jackson
Mary stated that she had no knowledge of the inscription and denied scratching it into the pew. She further stated that she would not spell “was” as “woz” and would not refer to Christmas as “Xmas” in a formal setting.
Investigator’s note: Geoff considers Mary’s denial partly believable, particularly regarding spelling standards. However, her strong objection to the wording may also indicate close familiarity with it.
- Statement: Tony Whitlesay
Tony denied involvement and said he had “no reason to write Mary’s name on anything.” He added that people were “too quick to point fingers” and that the Chapel should be focusing on more important matters.
Investigator’s note: Geoff considers Tony’s statement evasive. His attempt to redirect the matter toward unspecified “more important matters” is noted.
- Statement: Jean Hutton
Jean stated that she had not seen anyone damaging the pew and was unaware of the inscription until told about it. She said Mary “would have written it neater” if responsible.
Investigator’s note: Geoff considers Jean’s statement generally believable, although her defence of Mary is based on handwriting expectations rather than evidence.
- Statement: Margaret Albasson
Margaret stated that she had no knowledge of the damage and had not sat in the middle row on the right-hand side recently. She added that, in her view, “Xmas 14” was probably meant to suggest 2014 rather than 1914.
Investigator’s note: Geoff considers it unlikely that the inscription has remained unnoticed since Christmas 1914. Especially because this pew has one of the better views of the lectern so is very well used.
- Statement: Simon Potts
Simon stated that he had not been inside the Chapel recently and could not remember whether the inscription was present during earlier years.
Investigator’s note: Geoff considers Simon’s statement consistent with Simon's previous memory gaps (especially when asked to update the website).
- Statement: Gayle Spackmore
Gayle stated that she had helped clear up after a recent service and did not notice any damage to the pew at that time. She said the inscription must either be recent or in a place people do not usually look.
Investigator’s note: Geoff considers this believable and helpful.
- Statement: Henry Spackmore
Henry stated that he had no involvement and only became aware of the matter after hearing people discussing it. He said he did not know Mary well enough to frame her.
Investigator’s note: Geoff says that last year he overheard some other members of the congregation talking about something involving him, Mary and Gayle. He assumed they were talking about a love-triangle although his suspicions were never proven.
- Assessment
The possibility that the inscription dates from Christmas 1914 is considered unlikely. The wording, particularly “woz ere” and “Xmas 14,” appears more consistent with recent or late twentieth-century informal graffiti than with an inscription from 1914.
The possibility that Mary was framed cannot be ruled out. The use of her name may have been deliberate, particularly as the inscription is crude and conspicuous.
Mary’s direct involvement is also possible, but there is no supporting evidence beyond the use of her name, and she is not known to have any affiliation to criminals or graffiti-gangs.
- Recommendation
On balance, the most likely explanation is that the inscription was made by another person in an attempt either to implicate Mary or to make a joke at her expense.
If is was done by a third party then Henry is considered the most likely person to have done it, probably in a love-revenge attack. This is not a formal finding of guilt, but it is recommended that he is not left alone in the Chapel until the matter has been resolved.