Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Police Code & The Goulston Street Graffito

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Police Code & The Goulston Street Graffito

    An entry in Howard Vincent's Police Code, a guide book by which all constables should abide by, under Obscene Publications (Page 122), on the erasing of such chalk writing as seen in Goulston Street.

    So it would seem the Met were guided to erase the graffito after all.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Howard-Vince...ct_top?ie=UTF8

    Monty
    Attached Files
    Monty

    https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

    Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

  • #2
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    An entry in Howard Vincent's Police Code, a guide book by which all constables should abide by, under Obscene Publications (Page 122), on the erasing of such chalk writing as seen in Goulston Street.

    So it would seem the Met were guided to erase the graffito after all.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Howard-Vince...ct_top?ie=UTF8

    Monty
    IF they determined it was a threat Monty, since its a vague message as written, seems like a judgment call was made on this.

    Cheers

    Comment


    • #3
      The writing on the wall was neither obscene nor did it contain "Threatening words or figures" so I can't see how the police code applies. Sir Charles Warren explained why it was felt desirable to obliterate the writing, because: "there would have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost".

      Comment


      • #4
        But how is the GSG obscene or threatening.

        It may be racist (at a stretch) it may have been likely to incite a riot, but it doesn't fit the description, unless there is a definition of Obscene or Threatening in the Code that isn't shown that lets it in.
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
          IF they determined it was a threat Monty, since its a vague message as written, seems like a judgment call was made on this.

          Cheers
          I agree Michael,

          And yet it was removed.


          Monty
          Monty

          https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

          Comment


          • #6
            Yes I think that applies to nuisance graffiti, not evidence.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #7
              "A Riot against the Jews.

              On Saturday in several quarters of East London the crowds who had assembled in the streets began to assume a very threatening attitude towards the Hebrew population of the district. It was repeatedly asserted that no Englishman could have perpetrated such a horrible crime as that of Hanbury-street, and that it must have been done by a Jew - and forthwith the crowds proceeded to threaten and abuse such of the unfortunate Hebrews as they found in the streets. Happily, the presence of the large number of police in the streets prevented a riot actually taking place."


              East London Observer 15 September.

              Does this make the graffiti threating?
              dustymiller
              aka drstrange

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                Does this make the graffiti threating?
                No it doesn't.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ive said here many times that I believe the grafitto was interpreted to be accusatory towards Jews, (just like it reads, with sarcasm...like it seems they never get blamed for anything they do), which would agree with that interpretation by the authorities. They felt Jews were in danger by virtue of that message.

                  What they, and many since, dont seem to connect that with that message is with the murder on the property of allegedly Radical, Anarchistic Jews on Berner Street. The Jews were vocally seeking to blame "another woman"'s death on a killer at large, and with Israels story, apparently a gentile.

                  They sought to direct attention away from their club and members....so that The Jews will be, once again according to the grafitto author, the men that dont get blamed for anything.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    In it's confusion of meaning, the grafitti was threatening, obscene and thought to be conflagratory. If the code was followed to the letter based upon these conjectures, then erasure makes sense. And , after all, obscenity and threat are always judgement calls.

                    Mike
                    huh?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                      "A Riot against the Jews.

                      On Saturday in several quarters of East London the crowds who had assembled in the streets began to assume a very threatening attitude towards the Hebrew population of the district. It was repeatedly asserted that no Englishman could have perpetrated such a horrible crime as that of Hanbury-street, and that it must have been done by a Jew - and forthwith the crowds proceeded to threaten and abuse such of the unfortunate Hebrews as they found in the streets. Happily, the presence of the large number of police in the streets prevented a riot actually taking place."


                      East London Observer 15 September.

                      Does this make the graffiti threating?
                      Arnold thought so, Warren agreed...so yeah, it does.

                      Monty
                      Monty

                      https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                      Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                      http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                        The writing on the wall was neither obscene nor did it contain "Threatening words or figures" so I can't see how the police code applies. Sir Charles Warren explained why it was felt desirable to obliterate the writing, because: "there would have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost".
                        agree. Especially since it was found above the bloody apron and therefore tied into the ripper killings.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          agree. Especially since it was found above the bloody apron and therefore tied into the ripper killings.
                          Absolutely. The apron was the only thing that attached any significance to the writing on the wall. I'm sure the police didn't take it upon themselves to erase every bit of graffiti in London; the code only made them responsible for removing obscene and/or threatening graffiti, which the writing on the wall in Goulston Street clearly and self-evidently was not, by any definition.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just as likely it was recognised as a masonic reference and needed to be removed.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              No, probably not

                              Originally posted by MysterySinger View Post
                              Just as likely it was recognised as a masonic reference and needed to be removed.
                              I think it's a myth that the GSG referred to anything connected to Freemasonry. So, not that likely.
                              Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                              ---------------
                              Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                              ---------------

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X