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:
Non-Fiction: American Jack: Jack the Ripper and the United States - by Herlock Sholmes 12 minutes ago.
Notable Persons: Robert Paul - by Herlock Sholmes 17 minutes ago.
Martha Tabram: Things which don't make sense (to me) - by Trevor Marriott 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.
Periodicals: The Suicide of Pigott - by David Orsam 2 hours ago.
Periodicals: The Suicide of Pigott - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: The Bucks Row Project part 2 - by Herlock Sholmes 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (41 posts)
Periodicals: The Suicide of Pigott - (26 posts)
Martha Tabram: Things which don't make sense (to me) - (22 posts)
Witnesses: The Bucks Row Project part 2 - (15 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (13 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (6 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 Today, 12:54 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,598
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 Today, 01:49 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,270
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 Today, 01:54 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,603
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 Today, 02:02 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,598
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
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 03:53 PM.


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