Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Value of a lie - by harry 10 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Sam Flynn 18 minutes ago.
Witnesses: The Bucks Row Project part 2 - by Elamarna 1 hour and 22 minutes ago.
Notable Persons: Robert Paul - by FrankO 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Value of a lie - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by Trevor Marriott 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (44 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (26 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (22 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was Annie Chapman a rotund woman? - (17 posts)
Witnesses: Value of a lie - (14 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Bloodhounds - (11 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > General Police Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #231  
Old 08-13-2017, 01:54 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post

Hi Steve,

But my argument is: how could he be certain that he was being told the truth about being wanted by another policeman? Wouldn't he still be expected to take some basic details, or even ask the men to accompany him when he responds?

Anyway, as I said, I look forward to reading your final analysis on this issue.
Indeed you maybe correct if it happened the way he said.
The story he told would therefore be to cover a multitude of "sins". By saying he was requested no one asked those questions did they? It worked until he was outed as a suspect did it not?

Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 08-13-2017 at 01:58 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 08-13-2017, 02:46 AM
John G John G is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Indeed you maybe correct if it happened the way he said.
The story he told would therefore be to cover a multitude of "sins". By saying he was requested no one asked those questions did they? It worked until he was outed as a suspect did it not?

Steve
Hi Steve,

When you write "outed as a suspect" are you referring to PC Mizen? Or have I completely misunderstood?

Interestingly, I've found a thread in which David argued that PC Mizen would not have been in breach of police regulations by failing to take names and addresses: http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-8561.html

However, whilst that might be technically correct, in light of what subsequently transpired it may be that his superiors would have taken a dim view of his failure to interrogate the men more closely. Or at least that could have been PC Mizen's conclusion.

Last edited by John G : 08-13-2017 at 02:58 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 08-13-2017, 03:04 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Steve,

When you write "outed as a suspect" are you referring to PC Mizen? Or have a completely misunderstood?
no sorry, not writing clear, just got up when i posted is only excuse.
I meant before Lechmere, Mizen has never been a suspect has far as I know
Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Interestingly, I've found a thread in which David argued that PC Mizen would not have been in breach of police regulations by failing to take names and addresses: http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-8561.html

However, whilst that might be technically correct, in light of what subsequently transpired it may be that his superiors would have taken a dim view of his failure to interrogate the men more closely. Or at least that could have been PC Mizen's conclusion.

I agree John, procedurally he may have followed guidelines, but that would not be how it may appear in the press, his superiors may not have wanted such trouble, he may well have supposed.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 08-13-2017, 03:18 AM
John G John G is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
no sorry, not writing clear, just got up when i posted is only excuse.
I meant before Lechmere, Mizen has never been a suspect has far as I know



I agree John, procedurally he may have followed guidelines, but that would not be how it may appear in the press, his superiors may not have wanted such trouble, he may well have supposed.


Steve
Yes, and on further reflection I think David's interpretation of The Code may be too literal, with all due respect to him.

Thus, The Police Code stated that an officer would face misconduct charges for "neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or a case of accident."

Now, of course, PC Mizen didn't know that the incident constituted a criminal case or an accident, but surely a purposive interpretation of the Code is required. Otherwise, it would be rendered almost meaningless, as an officer could always say they couldn't know if this was the type of incident that required them to take particulars. In other words, they must have been expected to exercise a certain amount of discretion in these circumstances.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 08-13-2017, 03:26 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Yes, and on further reflection I think David's interpretation of The Code may be too literal, with all due respect to him.

Thus, The Police Code stated that an officer would face misconduct charges for "neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or a case of accident."

Now, of course, PC Mizen didn't know that the incident constituted a criminal case or an accident, but surely a purposive interpretation of the Code is required. Otherwise, it would be rendered almost meaningless, as an officer could always say they couldn't know if this was an incident that required them to take particulars. In other words, they must have been expected to exercise a certain amount of discretion in these circumstances.
John,

I think the issue Mizen may have faced was a possible perception of failure in many, not only one, area.
Indeed but for his testimony on Monday 1st, there may well have been press claims on the 2nd, of not just incompetence, but negligence, whether such was justified or not.

It maybe it is not what he did or did not do, but how he may have considered the press would report such, and the public react.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 08-13-2017, 03:40 AM
John G John G is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
John,

I think the issue Mizen may have faced was a possible perception of failure in many, not only one, area.
Indeed but for his testimony on Monday 1st, there may well have been press claims on the 2nd, of not just incompetence, but negligence, whether such was justified or not.

It maybe it is not what he did or did not do, but how he may have considered the press would report such, and the public react.


Steve
Hi Steve,

Yes, I'm sure you're right. And, of course, I was wrong in my earlier post: based upon a literal interpretation of the Police Code he was negligent in failing to take particulars as a crime had, indeed, taken place.

Last edited by John G : 08-13-2017 at 03:43 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 08-13-2017, 03:44 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Steve,

Yes, I'm sure you're right. And, of course, I was wrong in my earlier post: based upon a literal interpretation of the Police Code he was negligent in failing to take particulars as a crime had taken place.

Yes Hindsight was the cause of much of the issue with Mizen, when the Carmen approached he could not know a crime had been committed, but it would have been useful to take details just in case.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 08-13-2017, 03:53 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
John,

I think the issue Mizen may have faced was a possible perception of failure in many, not only one, area.
Indeed but for his testimony on Monday 1st, there may well have been press claims on the 2nd, of not just incompetence, but negligence, whether such was justified or not.

It maybe it is not what he did or did not do, but how he may have considered the press would report such, and the public react.
Hi Steve,
What makes you think the press would have attacked Mizen? PC Long's failure to follow up properly on the apron piece was arguably far more serious, yet aside from the direct inquest coverage he doesn't seem to have attracted the ire of the press or public, nor was he reprimanded, as far as we know.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 08-13-2017, 04:17 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Hi Steve,
What makes you think the press would have attacked Mizen? PC Long's failure to follow up properly on the apron piece was arguably far more serious, yet aside from the direct inquest coverage he doesn't seem to have attracted the ire of the press or public, nor was he reprimanded, as far as we know.


Hi Joshua,

fair question.
I think that is down to how we view the two incidents, its interpretation is it not?
I do not consider Long did that much wrong, however my take on Mizen is that he did far more which could be portrayed as being wrong.
The Lloyds article sets the tone, be it right or wrong, for this purpose it reliability is not important, it was highly critical of the police, particularly Mizen, suggesting incompetence and more.
If this was then viewed as being supported by Mizen's actions, following the meeting with the Carmen, we have an increasingly hostile climate, specifically relating to one police officer.

And just let me add, I think Mizen was not a bad man, just think he made an error of judgement.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 08-13-2017, 04:22 AM
John G John G is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,829
Default

It makes you wonder what would have happened if Cross or Paul had failed to turn up at the inquest, and it was subsequently revealed that PC Mizen had exercised his discretion in favour of not taking particulars. Oh dear...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.