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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 3 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - by Herlock Sholmes 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Trevor Marriott 5 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - by Pcdunn 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (26 posts)
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - (3 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (3 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Jack the Poet - (2 posts)
Neil, P.C. John: Running towards me without a hat, which raised my suspicions!!! - (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
  #251  
Old 08-13-2017, 06:14 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
There's no record of PC Mizen being investigated, or punished, on the basis that his testimony was contradicted at the inquest.
It's got nothing to do with his testimony at the inquest. His superiors would, obviously, have known that he hadn't taken the names or addresses of the two men.

If they had thought that he hadn't used his discretion properly (which was the point you were making) they would no doubt have disciplined him for neglect of duty. But they didn't, which allows us to confirm that, if it was an issue of discretion (which, of course, I don't agree that it was), he used it correctly.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 08-13-2017, 07:03 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
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.
Hello David,

How is it obviously a "criminal case" simply because an officer has been informed by a total stranger/ member of the public that a crime has been committed?

Last edited by John G : 08-13-2017 at 07:13 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 08-13-2017, 07:07 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
It's got nothing to do with his testimony at the inquest. His superiors would, obviously, have known that he hadn't taken the names or addresses of the two men.

If they had thought that he hadn't used his discretion properly (which was the point you were making) they would no doubt have disciplined him for neglect of duty. But they didn't, which allows us to confirm that, if it was an issue of discretion (which, of course, I don't agree that it was), he used it correctly.
But PC Mizen disputed that he was told a woman was lying down, possibly dead, which could conceivably suggest a crime had taken place. Instead, he claimed that he was told he was wanted by another officer.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 08-13-2017, 07:22 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hello David,

How is it obviously a "criminal case" simply because an officer has been informed by a total stranger/ member of the public that a crime has been committed?
Do I really need to answer that?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 08-13-2017, 07:24 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
But PC Mizen disputed that he was told a woman was lying down, possibly dead, which could conceivably suggest a crime had taken place. Instead, he claimed that he was told he was wanted by another officer.
He didn't dispute anything.

Anyway this argument is quite mad. If he has discretion then he has discretion. You can't get in trouble for using discretion if you have it!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 08-13-2017, 07:32 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
He didn't dispute anything.

Anyway this argument is quite mad. If he has discretion then he has discretion. You can't get in trouble for using discretion if you have it!
Yes he did! At least by implication, because his account fundamentally differs from Cross'.

And are you really arguing that his discretion would be unfetted?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 08-13-2017, 07:36 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Do I really need to answer that?
I don't think it can be answered. Thus, let us say that he's informed that someone has been murdered. However, it subsequently transpires that he's been tricked, i e. to get him to abandon his beat. Clearly no murder has actually taken place in these circumstances, hence no criminal case.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 08-13-2017, 07:37 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Yes he did! At least by implication, because his account fundamentally differs from Cross'.
But he gave evidence before Cross, so he could hardly dispute what hadn't yet been said.

He wasn't psychic John!

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
And are you really arguing that his discretion would be unfetted?
I don't actually know what discretion you are talking about. The Police Code doesn't refer to any discretion. It just says an officer should take details in a criminal case or a case of accident. You are the one introducing discretion. But discretion means freedom to make one's own decision so if he has discretion it makes a nonsense of it if he gets in trouble for using it!!!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 08-13-2017, 07:40 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I don't think it can be answered. Thus, let us say that he's informed that someone has been murdered. However, it subsequently transpires that he's been tricked, i e. to get him to abandon his beat. Clearly no murder has actually taken place in these circumstances, hence no criminal case.
It doesn't matter, he's been told a criminal offence has been committed. So his state of knowledge is that it's a criminal case. If it turns out there is no criminal offence it won't matter. But if there has been a criminal offence (as he has been told) and he hasn't taken the details, one can see that he could be in trouble for neglecting to take details.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 08-13-2017, 07:45 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
It doesn't matter, he's been told a criminal offence has been committed. So his state of knowledge is that it's a criminal case. If it turns out there is no criminal offence it won't matter. But if there has been a criminal offence (as he has been told) and he hasn't taken the details, one can see that he could be in trouble for neglecting to take details.
But the Code doesn't say anything about "state of knowledge"
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 07:04 PM.


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