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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Paddy 6 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: Police Orders 1st October 1888 - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - (1 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
  #241  
Old 08-13-2017, 04:25 AM
John G John G is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
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
Hi Steve,

Sorry for being a bit lazy, but could I trouble you for the Lloyds article reference?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 08-13-2017, 04:35 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

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

Sorry for being a bit lazy, but could I trouble you for the Lloyds article reference?
Project part 2, my post 3, but actual thread post #8

reports 1 & 2

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...34&postcount=8


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 08-13-2017, 04:46 AM
John G John G is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Project part 2, my post 3, but actual thread post #8

reports 1 & 2

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...34&postcount=8


Steve
Thanks Steve. I should have noticed that. I feel a bit silly now!

Of course, on the basis of the Lloyds article he should have taken particulars on the basis he'd been told someone had possibly been murdered.

It also explains why he would feel the need to refute claims he failed to respond promptly. However, the issue is why not say he responded on the basis of being informed about an extremely serious incident, which would be close to the truth, rather than on the basis of being wanted by another officer, which probably wasn't and was virtually certain to be challenged at the inquest?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 08-13-2017, 04:50 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
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.
As Steve has mentioned, based upon a literal interpretation of the Police Code he was perfectly correct not to take details as he had not been informed that either a crime or an accident had occurred.

I don't know how else you read rules and regulations other than literally.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 08-13-2017, 04:58 AM
John G John G is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
As Steve has mentioned, based upon a literal interpretation of the Police Code he was perfectly correct not to take details as he had not been informed that either a crime or an accident had occurred.

I don't know how else you read rules and regulations other than literally.
But does the Code actually say he needs to be informed that a crime or accident had taken place? And if it doesn't then you would have to read those words into the Code, which wouldn't result in a literal interpretation. Therefore my reading of the Code, based upon a literal interpretation, is that he would technically be guilty of misconduct if it's subsequently determined that a crime or accident had taken place.

Of course, it could be argued that on any sensible construction he would have been allowed a certain degree of discretion. However, the question that then arises is: did he correctly exercise his discretion in this case?

Last edited by John G : 08-13-2017 at 05:04 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 08-13-2017, 05:03 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Thanks Steve. I should have noticed that. I feel a bit silly now!

Of course, on the basis of the Lloyds article he should have taken particulars on the basis he'd been told someone had possibly been murdered.

It also explains why he would feel the need to refute claims he failed to respond promptly. However, the issue is why not say he responded on the basis of being informed about an extremely serious incident, which would be close to the truth, rather than on the basis of being wanted by another officer, which probably wasn't and was virtually certain to be challenged at the inquest?

By saying hewas requested by another officer, particularily after the lloyds statement he directs the question to:

"Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?"

Which can be put down to a misunderstanding., rather that than have other questions asked which could be potentially very damaging from a public perspective.

And it appears it was put down to a misunderstanding, as Paul appears not to have been questioned on the issue on 17th September.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 08-13-2017, 05:38 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
But does the Code actually say he needs to be informed that a crime or accident had taken place? And if it doesn't then you would have to read those words into the Code, which wouldn't result in a literal interpretation. Therefore my reading of the Code, based upon a literal interpretation, is that he would technically be guilty of misconduct if it's subsequently determined that a crime or accident had taken place.
In which case, Jon, if you want to take that approach, you are still wrong because the only incident which had occurred was two men coming up to speak to him. It was, at that time, neither a criminal case nor a case of accident so on a literal interpretation of the rules there was nothing for him to record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Of course, it could be argued that on any sensible construction he would have been allowed a certain degree of discretion. However, the question that then arises is: did he correctly exercise his discretion in this case?
There is no record of him being punished in Police Orders so the answer must be: yes.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 08-13-2017, 05:45 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
In which case, Jon, if you want to take that approach, you are still wrong because the only incident which had occurred was two men coming up to speak to him. It was, at that time, neither a criminal case nor a case of accident so on a literal interpretation of the rules there was nothing for him to record. .

Agree David, its not that he did anything wrong from a procedural point of w, he almost certainly did not!
It's how it could have been portrayed by the press and perceived by the public if other questions had been of Mizen at the inquest.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 08-13-2017, 06:01 AM
John G John G is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
In which case, Jon, if you want to take that approach, you are still wrong because the only incident which had occurred was two men coming up to speak to him. It was, at that time, neither a criminal case nor a case of accident so on a literal interpretation of the rules there was nothing for him to record.



There is no record of him being punished in Police Orders so the answer must be: yes.
But at which point does it become a "criminal case." After the inquest verdict? After the police open an official investigation?

No sensible construction of the Code could lead to either conclusion, otherwise it might lead to absurd results. For instance, let us say Cross informed PC Mizen that there was a woman lying down, probably dead, with deep gashes to her throat and abdomen. Moreover, he saw a man looming over the body with what appeared to be a bloody knife, but he ran off as he approached.

PC Mizen could simply say that he didn't take particulars on the ground that, officially, it wasn't yet a "criminal case!"

There's no record of PC Mizen being investigated, or punished, on the basis that his testimony was contradicted at the inquest. However, I would expect that by then his superiors were happy to simply draw a line under the whole affair.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 08-13-2017, 06:11 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
But at which point does it become a "criminal case." After the inquest verdict? After the police open an official investigation?

No sensible construction of the Code could lead to either conclusion, otherwise it might lead to absurd results.
Come on John, give this up. If you are speaking now of a "sensible construction" of the Police Code then the officer MUST know that there has been a crime or an accident right?

I mean, it's not the Police Code for Psychic Police Officers is it?

It's obviously a criminal case or a case of accident when the officer knows, or is informed, that a crime or accident has occurred.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
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 12:08 AM.


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