The Police Code & The Goulston Street Graffito

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that the GSG was not necessarily interpreted as a secondary item to the cloth and that's why they felt it threatening, I think the general feeling of prejudice as a reaction to the massive influx of Eastern European and Russian Jews into Londons East End, was likely "the powder keg" the local establishment felt was in their midst. The message stood independent of the cloth in that respect...unless of course the cloth and the anti-Semite message were intentionally there to punctuate each other.

People seem to think that Jack the Ripper was the only threat to the citizens of London at the time, when something like the Parnell Commission alone debunks that myth. These were dark times, poverty, disease, overcrowding, anarchists and revolutionary socialists populated the square mile the killings were committed within, and many of these were considered as serious threats to the naturalized citizens and governments.

[Natasha]

Well the fact that Warren had to explain why he instructed the GSG to be wiped away means the code had no bearing in this matter, and he didn't directly refer to it did he, when asked?

[Michael W Richards]

Well the fact that Warren had to explain why he instructed the GSG to be wiped away means the code had no bearing in this matter, and he didn't directly refer to it did he, when asked?

I think the questioning of the erasure related to its possible merit as evidence in a murder investigation, for handwriting analysis and interpretation, something in this case would only be presumptuous based on its proximity to the cloth.

Which is interesting, considering the cloth may not have been placed there, and placed purposefully, until over an hour after the Mitre Square murder.

[David Orsam]

I don't know why so many people in this thread appear determined to try and unnaturally squeeze the writing on the wall into the terms of the police code where it clearly does not belong. The section of the police code reproduced by Monty is under the heading of "Obscene Publications". It deals only with obscene and, almost by way of afterthought, threatening graffiti.

The writing on the wall was: "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" or something very similar to that.

In no definition of the English language can this sentence be described as obscene or threatening. There are no obscenities and no individual, or group of people, is being threatened in that sentence.

In the context of the two murders and the discovery of the bloodstained apron, the police evidently regarded it as inflammatory. I think that is the word people in this thread have been grasping for.

Had the author of the police code wanted to include inflammatory or insulting or accusative or libellous graffiti in the police code he would no doubt have done so. Sir Charles Warren clearly explained why it was felt desirable to remove the writing on the wall. His explanation does not refer to the police code. He said it was because there might be rioting, destruction of property and loss of life. This would have been the case irrespective of anything in the police code.

Erasure of the writing was not even the issue. The issue was whether to erase the writing before or after it was photographed. The Met Police wanted to do it before, the City Police after. Nothing in the police code assisted with this.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know why so many people in this thread appear determined to try and unnaturally squeeze the writing on the wall into the terms of the police code where it clearly does not belong. The section of the police code reproduced by Monty is under the heading of "Obscene Publications". It deals only with obscene and, almost by way of afterthought, threatening graffiti.

The writing on the wall was: "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" or something very similar to that.

In no definition of the English language can this sentence be described as obscene or threatening. There are no obscenities and no individual, or group of people, is being threatened in that sentence.

In the context of the two murders and the discovery of the bloodstained apron, the police evidently regarded it as inflammatory. I think that is the word people in this thread have been grasping for.

Had the author of the police code wanted to include inflammatory or insulting or accusative or libellous graffiti in the police code he would no doubt have done so. Sir Charles Warren clearly explained why it was felt desirable to remove the writing on the wall. His explanation does not refer to the police code. He said it was because there might be rioting, destruction of property and loss of life. This would have been the case irrespective of anything in the police code.

Erasure of the writing was not even the issue. The issue was whether to erase the writing before or after it was photographed. The Met Police wanted to do it before, the City Police after. Nothing in the police code assisted with this.

David the part I captured in bold was what I wanted to address....if the author meant that 5 lines to suggest that the Jews have been held blameless for things they should have been held accountable for, (which is one way the phrase might be interpreted), then it is inflammatory and could incite violence towards the Jews. Remember, this antisemetism in the area was real and reaching a boiling point...not helped by suggestions from a Senior Official that a "Jew" was responsible for the murders based on Septembers investigations.

[David Orsam]

if the author meant....then it is inflammatory

But that's what I said! You have actually avoided any discussion of the part of my post that you highlighted in bold.

[Monty]

The definition of criminal obscenity, as described by Lord Chief Justice John Coleridge, is that it "tends to deprave and corrupt," and publication of it, no matter the form, is a misdemeanour.

The code is guidance, to be used as advice, with that advice based upon acts of parliment, law.

The issue here is intrepretation, David clearly feels the writing does not, in itself, come under the Obscene Publications Act of 1857 (which the Code entry is based upon). 'Obscene' is not defined in the act, and therefore relies on the Hiklen Test where "all material tending to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences was obscene, regardless of its artistic or literary merit".

Whilst Warren does not mention the Code in his explanation (why would he?, its guidance, not law) he does, via his interpretation, touch upon the Act (on which the Codes entry is based) when he states that it was "written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews." - (corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences).

Therefore this Code entry is relevant, and whilst we do not know if was referred to directly on the night, it does highlight a valid legal reason for its erasure.

Monty

[Hunter]

...Remember, this antisemetism in the area was real and reaching a boiling point...not helped by suggestions from a Senior Official that a "Jew" was responsible for the murders based on Septembers investigations.

What senior official did that?...And for the antisemitism situation to not be helped, such a statement would need to be publicly known.

[Hunter]

...
Therefore this Code entry is relevant, and whilst we do not know if was referred to directly on the night, it does highlight a valid legal reason for its erasure.

I would think that possible evidence in a capital crime would be prioritized differently. That is what the controversy was about. The "Dear Boss" letter certainly was inflammatory, but because it was considered as possible evidence, it was reproduced for public consumption in the hope of gaining a lead.

[Monty]

I would think that possible evidence in a capital crime would be prioritized differently. That is what the controversy was about. The "Dear Boss" letter certainly was inflammatory, but because it was considered as possible evidence, it was reproduced for public consumption in the hope of gaining a lead.

From an investigative point of view, I agree, however I feel we must take on board the policing aspect also.

We have two forces looking at this from their perspective angles, both valid, however I feel the lack of consideration for the City's position is clear, however that's a different debate.

The code entry was there, I am not stating it was used in relation to this event, merely throwing it out there, but knowing policemen as I do, that entry would have been utilised if felt necessary.

Monty

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I think the graffiti was threatening, but I also think the code is about more random events. This was a clue. There was a judgement call, and a disagreement between the two police jurisdictions.

This said, I'm in no rush calling this a big mistake. Who knows what would have happened if people saw it.

The anti semite events quoted earlier (newspaper) happened right after Chapman. Now both Stride and Eddowes have link to the Jewish population, where apparently there was already a lot of resentment against, especially in Spitalfields (according to the book Worst Street in London)

[David Orsam]

I think the graffiti was threatening

Why? What threat was conveyed by the words "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing"? I am suggesting there is no threat in there, either express or implied.

Do you disagree that in the context of being written on the wall in Goulston Street those words could reasonably have been considered to be inflammatory?

[David Orsam]

The definition of criminal obscenity, as described by Lord Chief Justice John Coleridge, is that it "tends to deprave and corrupt," and publication of it, no matter the form, is a misdemeanour.

But Monty, there is a gaping hole in your argument in that you have not demonstrated or explained how the words "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" could conceivably tend to deprave and corrupt.

The only evidence you have offered in support is Sir Charles Warren's comment that the words were written "with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews". That simply confirms what I said about the writing being regarded by the police as inflammatory.

Something being inflammatory is totally different from something which tends to deprave and corrupt.

The writing definitely wouldn't have come under the Obscene Publications Act of 1857 which was actually called "An Act for more effectually preventing the Sale of Obscene Books, Pictures, Prints and other Articles" because the obscene publication had to be created for gain/sale but let's assume that the Act did cover writing on a wall. In that case, if the author of the writing had been caught and charged under the Obscene Publications Act I guarantee you the case would have been dismissed by the magistrate and literally laughed out of court. That is because the writing was not obscene. And you do know that by "obscene" is basically meant pornographic don't you?

[David Orsam]

Whilst Warren does not mention the Code in his explanation (why would he?, its guidance, not law)

Well hold on, you said in the OP that the Police Code was "a guide book by which all constables should abide by". You once kindly explained to me that the reference to "constables" in the Police Code applied to every officer of all ranks. Thus, Sir Charles should have abided by the Police Code. That being so, I would have expected him to refer to the code as justification for his controversial decision to erase the writing if the Police Code had actually been on his mind, which I am quite sure it wasn't. The simple fact is that the decision he made that morning had nothing at all to do with the Police Code.

[Michael W Richards]

But that's what I said! You have actually avoided any discussion of the part of my post that you highlighted in bold.

Perhaps I shouldnt have included that single word in bold, when the majority of which I did highlight "In no definition of the English language can this sentence be described as obscene or threatening. There are no obscenities and no individual, or group of people, is being threatened in that sentence" was what I was intending to address."

If the message was written to incite anger towards Jews, which I believe it was simply by reading it with some emotional context, then it is threatening.

Semantics, is all.