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:
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - by Madam Detective 32 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - by Madam Detective 40 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - by Madam Detective 50 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Harry D 52 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: East End Walk - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Michael W Richards 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (15 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (13 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (11 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (10 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (5 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - (5 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
  #311  
Old 08-17-2017, 12:54 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Mizen had an obligation to the department to report his actions.His training would have instilled a need to obtain particulars of the person/persons reporting.He had opportunity to do that.He had an issued notebook in which to record particulars.He didn't do so.He was in breach of his responsibilities.
The only problem with that, Harry, is you are making it all up.

It's not what the Police Code says. There was no requirement for him "to obtain particulars of person/persons reporting" in circumstances where they were not reporting a criminal offence nor an accident nor have you provided any evidence that this was something he was trained to do.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 08-17-2017, 01:49 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
my thoughts on the matter are two-fold steve. the first, did pc mizen's accountability come into question only after the severity of the crime was realized? the second involves his presence at the inquest.

if you erase all the parts about the carmen out of his statement, the most that you are left with is:
i went for the ambulance.

would this scant account of his involvement have warranted coroner baxter calling him before the inquest jury had there been no carmen? i have my doubts.

he only seems to be at the inquest to refute paul's statement in the Lloyd's article, appearing dutiful rather than negligent. i dont think metro was worried as much about pc mizen's reputation as... their own. since metro was willing to let this discrepancy between lechmere and mizen slide without further investigation, it suggests to me that they favored lechmere's story or concluded that the argument was irrelevant to the case.
Robert

If you ignore the Carmen, you are left with a little more than you think..

I agree the POLICE has an institution possibly favoured Lechmere's version of event's; there are sources which suggest at least, that they placed little credence on Mizen's.

And it was irrelevant to the murder, unless that is Pierre's hypothesis is shown to be correct.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 08-17-2017, 01:54 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,684
Default

Not making anything up,David.The police code was an interpretation of the law that gave power to police officers.It directed officers how and when to act
I can give many instancies of police officers acting in circumstances that were not a breach of the law.You have stated one,accidents.
As to training,no I cannot refer to a training manual regarding the use of notebooks in 1888,can you?,but I can state from my own experience and training,that an officer should not rely on memory,but at the first opportunity commit conversations to writing, and obtain particulars of a person/persons giving information.I find it hard to understand that it would be any different in 1888.That is a primary reason notebooks were issued.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 08-17-2017, 02:02 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Not making anything up,David.The police code was an interpretation of the law that gave power to police officers.It directed officers how and when to act
I can give many instancies of police officers acting in circumstances that were not a breach of the law.You have stated one,accidents.
As to training,no I cannot refer to a training manual regarding the use of notebooks in 1888,can you?,but I can state from my own experience and training,that an officer should not rely on memory,but at the first opportunity commit conversations to writing, and obtain particulars of a person/persons giving information.I find it hard to understand that it would be any different in 1888.That is a primary reason notebooks were issued.
The problem, Harry, is that you have no experience of the training for an officer in 1888. Nor do you have any evidence of what they needed to put into their notebooks. That is why I say you are "making it up".

You are simply applying modern policing guidance to the nineteenth century which is wholly inappropriate.

I wouldn't mind but we have the Police Code for the period which tell us precisely in what circumstances an officer was required to take particulars: criminal case and accident.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 08-17-2017, 06:11 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,684
Default

David,
There is evidence of what police officers in 1888 entered in their notebooks.Read related cases from that time.
It is also,from reading of old cases,possible to form an opinion of how departments operated,and in some cases, individual officers.
The evidence is there,do not accuse me of making things up.
So let me give you a general principle that covers what I have written.
It is,an employee has a responsibility to his employers to inform them of anything that relates to his employment.Mizen was an employee in the police department.Now you will not find that principle defined in the police code,but it was a principle that Mizen should have been aware of.It was a principle of law.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 08-18-2017, 02:03 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
David,
There is evidence of what police officers in 1888 entered in their notebooks.Read related cases from that time.
Please don't tell me, vaguely, to "Read related cases". It just shows that you don't know of any and are making everything up as you go along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
It is also,from reading of old cases,possible to form an opinion of how departments operated,and in some cases, individual officers.
That is no doubt true but which old cases help us with the situation under discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
The evidence is there,do not accuse me of making things up.
So let me give you a general principle that covers what I have written.
It is,an employee has a responsibility to his employers to inform them of anything that relates to his employment.Mizen was an employee in the police department.Now you will not find that principle defined in the police code,but it was a principle that Mizen should have been aware of.It was a principle of law.
That is beyond ridiculous Harry. So now you are making up the law too!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 08-18-2017, 04:37 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Robert

If you ignore the Carmen, you are left with a little more than you think..

I agree the POLICE has an institution possibly favoured Lechmere's version of event's; there are sources which suggest at least, that they placed little credence on Mizen's.

And it was irrelevant to the murder, unless that is Pierre's hypothesis is shown to be correct.


Steve
Hi Steve,

And why do you think the police did not want to place credence on what Mizen told them at the inquest?

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 08-18-2017, 05:01 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi Steve,

And why do you think the police did not want to place credence on what Mizen told them at the inquest?

Pierre
I don't think it's about "want".
I belive there is evidence from the sources to suggest that did not accept his statement as accurate.

One can only assume they investigated and came to a conclusion based on what they found out.

No disciplinary action may have been deemed in order, if they decided he had believed he was told he was needed by another when he was not.
In addition whatever the "Truth" it had no material effect on Mizen's eventual arrived at the murder scene.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 08-18-2017, 05:15 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Elamarna;426129]

Quote:
I don't think it's about "want".
By this, do you mean that they acted against their own will?

Quote:
I belive there is evidence from the sources to suggest that did not accept his statement as accurate.
And was the lack of acceptance against their own will?

Quote:
One can only assume they investigated and came to a conclusion based on what they found out.
Yes, I agree. And did they find out that no one of their police constables had asked Cross for assistance in Buckīs Row?

They didnīt, obviously.

And they did not want to believe the contrary.

Quote:
No disciplinary action may have been deemed in order, if they decided he had believed he was told he was needed by another when he was not.
So your hypothesis is that Mizen based the statement on belief. OK.

Why did not Mizen know at the inquest that there was no known police constable in Buckīs Row when Cross found her?

Because if he knew that he had understood that his belief was wrong.

Quote:
In addition whatever the "Truth" it had no material effect on Mizen's eventual arrived at the murder scene.
Dear Steve, we can not know this, since we do not have the alternative situation, with sources from it, in the past. So the "effect" is what it is.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 08-18-2017, 05:35 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

By this, do you mean that they acted against their own will?

And was the lack of acceptance against their own will?
No not at all. You asked why did they not want to accept . Which to me implies they had view not to accept what he said before investigating. I was saying it was not a want but the outcome of investigation.
If that was not the meaning it is fine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post


Yes, I agree. And did they find out that no one of their police constables had asked Cross for assistance in Buckīs Row?

They didnīt, obviously.

And they did not want to believe the contrary.
Which was?

They had two choices :

either Mizen had misunderstood.

Or

He had lied.
Misunderstand is far easier to accept and causes less problems.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

So your hypothesis is that Mizen based the statement on belief. OK.

1. Why did not Mizen know at the inquest that there was no known police constable in Buckīs Row when Cross found her?

Because if he knew that he had understood that his belief was wrong.
That is not my Hypothesis, that has I understand it is the one David thinks is probable.
I believe that is what his superiors decided.

My hypothesis amounts to he knew there was no other officer mentioned; however mentioning such ensured other issues were not looked into.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Dear Steve, we can not know this, since we do not have the alternative situation, with sources from it, in the past. So the "effect" is what it is.

Pierre
You misunderstand my dear Pierre.
Let me elaborated.

If he was told another police officer wanted him or not it did not prevent him from leaving the Corner of Hanbury/Old Montague/Bakers and making his way in a reasonable time to Bucks Row.

The Alternative would be that he did not arrive. He did.

Steve
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 05:29 PM.


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