The Police Code & The Goulston Street Graffito

[Wickerman]

I find it interesting that the report/letter by Warren, dated 6th Nov., detailing the circumstances of his removal of the graffiti makes no allusion to the possibility that it was evidence, or connected to the crime in any way.

[The Good Michael]

"The Juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing."

This is one of two things:-

either a statement of fact (for those who share the sentiment expressed) or

the expression of the writer's opinion (for those who don't).

By no stretch of the imagination could this be considered obscene. The only way it could be threatening would be if an inference was drawn that such was the intention. Its possible value as evidence (an issue still debated to this day) should have been the overriding factor which led to its being photographed before being erased. The wording of the GSG entered the public domain anyway at the Eddowes inquest. There was no consequent disorder that I am aware of and there is no indication that I am aware of that any precautions were taken against such an eventuality. Monty's highlighting of the relevant section of the code against the GSG is interesting but I find it very hard to make a case for it's being threatening or obscene.

I agree with most of this, but I find it easy for those in charge at the time to believe the message could have been interpreted in a way as to cause problems. That makes the interpretation of the message threatening to certain pairs of eyes. A message itself is never threatening or obscene. It is always a bit of judgement to claim such a thing. They judged differently from how we may have, but it doesn't make anyone right or wrong. It just makes for frustration.

Mike

[Bridewell]

Unfortunately,it was not photographed.

Yes I know, but it should have been. There is no valid police protocol for destroying what might be evidence on the basis of a judgement (valid or not) that it probably isn't. The GSG was erased before it could be photographed because rank (Warren & Arnold) over-ruled sound investigative judgement (Halse).

[DJA]

Unfortunately,it was not photographed.

[Bridewell]

"The Juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing."

This is one of two things:-

either a statement of fact (for those who share the sentiment expressed) or

the expression of the writer's opinion (for those who don't).

By no stretch of the imagination could this be considered obscene. The only way it could be threatening would be if an inference was drawn that such was the intention. Its possible value as evidence (an issue still debated to this day) should have been the overriding factor which led to its being photographed before being erased. The wording of the GSG entered the public domain anyway at the Eddowes inquest. There was no consequent disorder that I am aware of and there is no indication that I am aware of that any precautions were taken against such an eventuality. Monty's highlighting of the relevant section of the code against the GSG is interesting but I find it very hard to make a case for it's being threatening or obscene.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The first thing they teach you in advertising is "perception IS reality".

Yes, in the world of the easily led.

But anyone with a soul will only ever be impressed by substance over form.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Perceptions very often rule over realities. Your threatening man, by virtue of that very adjective, is a threat. A perceived one, in your example.

The first thing they teach you in advertising is "perception IS reality".

[David Orsam]

You guys are still arguing over this? The key point is that regardless of how the police perceived the message, their concern focused on how it might be perceived by a crowd. That point seems to keep being overlooked.

The point hasn't been overlooked at all. I have quoted Sir Charles Warren's concerns about how the mob would perceive it and stated that the writing was obviously regarded by the police as inflammatory. However, this thread is about the relationship of the writing on the wall to the Police Code which requires (or advises) the erasure of obscene and threatening messages. Establishing whether the writing was obscene and/or threatening is what my discussion with Michael and others has been about.

[c.d.]

You guys are still arguing over this? The key point is that regardless of how the police perceived the message, their concern focused on how it might be perceived by a crowd. That point seems to keep being overlooked.

c.d.

[David Orsam]

Perceptions very often rule over realities. Your threatening man, by virtue of that very adjective, is a threat. A perceived one, in your example.

You have added in the word "perceived" which wasn't originally present but in any case you have focussed on the wrong part of my example. The key bit was that something can be a threat without being threatening. They are different. You haven't disagreed with that. So the fact that the writing might have been a threat does not mean it was necessarily also threatening. That's the point.

[David Orsam]

Since it appears on a wall that leads to dwellings that were almost 100%populated by Immigrant Jews, I can see why they felt the need to have it erased.

That's not the point at issue between us. In fact, you are now arguing against yourself somewhat. I'm saying it was erased despite the Police Code not because of it. In other words, the Police Code had nothing to do with the erasure (because it wasn't threatening!)

[David Orsam]

We are arguing about something that is answered satisfactorily by the contemporary investigators, it was perceived as a threat to Jews and their safety.

But that isn't true at all. Please provide a single example of a contemporary report stating that the writing was considered to be "threatening".

[David Orsam]

How much time and energy needs to be spent on semantics here David?

The issue is ALL about semantics Michael considering that we are attempting to work out if the writing was "threatening" as per the Police Code.

[Michael W Richards]

That is not the case. I shouldn't have to explain basic principles of the English language but doing it as simply as possible by way of example:

A man can walk into a room with a threatening manner, using threatening language, but in fact pose no threat to anyone at all.

Equally, a man can walk into a room with a non-threatening manner, using no threatening language, but can pose a serious threat to everyone in the room.

Or a man can walk into a room with a threatening manner, using threatening language, AND pose a threat.

I'm sure you can see the difference. The fact that the message might have posed a threat to the public peace does not mean that it was inherently threatening. It is something different. The words "The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" are not inherently threatening. If there was a law against writing threatening messages you would never be able to convict the author for that rather neutral sentence. The message might have been a threat to the peace but it was most certainly not threatening.

Perceptions very often rule over realities. Your threatening man, by virtue of that very adjective, is a threat. A perceived one, in your example.

[Michael W Richards]

That is not the case. I shouldn't have to explain basic principles of the English language but doing it as simply as possible by way of example:

A man can walk into a room with a threatening manner, using threatening language, but in fact pose no threat to anyone at all.

Equally, a man can walk into a room with a non-threatening manner, using no threatening language, but can pose a serious threat to everyone in the room.

Or a man can walk into a room with a threatening manner, using threatening language, AND pose a threat.

I'm sure you can see the difference. The fact that the message might have posed a threat to the public peace does not mean that it was inherently threatening. It is something different. The words "The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" are not inherently threatening. If there was a law against writing threatening messages you would never be able to convict the author for that rather neutral sentence. The message might have been a threat to the peace but it was most certainly not threatening.

How much time and energy needs to be spent on semantics here David? IF the author intended to cast aspersions upon the Jews, or to suggest that they have mistakenly avoided blame for something, he might have written that exact phrase.

So, once again, and the last time Im going over this with you or anyone, a written suggestion of guilt by the Jews for anything they may have done...in the opinion of the author...as the message can be interpreted without any twisting or reading between the lines...in an area that was at that time experiencing real hostility and animosity to the large Jewish immigrant population in the area is in and of itself a threat to local Jews, if only on the basis of inciting an antisemetic reaction.

We are arguing about something that is answered satisfactorily by the contemporary investigators, it was perceived as a threat to Jews and their safety.

Since it appears on a wall that leads to dwellings that were almost 100%populated by Immigrant Jews, I can see why they felt the need to have it erased. Why they couldn't take down 1 official version of it before doing so is beyond me, but that's the crux.