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:
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by Herlock Sholmes 5 minutes ago.
Alice Mackenzie: McKenzie - Ripper or not? - by jerryd 17 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Henry Flower 19 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Sam Flynn 22 minutes ago.
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by Trevor Marriott 40 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Henry Flower 48 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - (37 posts)
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - (25 posts)
Witnesses: Value of a lie - (13 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (12 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (3 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
  #341  
Old Yesterday, 03:13 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hi Steve,

CL and Paul both had a good reason to lie to Mizen. Neither wanted to be late for work and so naturally wouldn't have wanted to hang around (they were both already late.) Of course I'm not claiming this to be a fact but it has to be at least a possibility.
It's possible.
However such does not have an impact on my ideas..
The story of being wanted by a policeman is only from after Neil's testimony on the 1st and probably after the Lloyds article of the 2nd.
I am more concerned with what happened according to the sources before then rather than what is said happened after.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old Yesterday, 05:33 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,607
Default

No David,I am not making anything up,nor are my comments ridiculous.The problem is,your understanding of the subject matter is lacking.You do not know as much as you pretend to.You therefor rely on personnel insults.
I know what Mizens training would have been, what a policeman's obligations were in 1888.My beliefs are based on that knowledge,and that belief is that Mizen lied,and that he failed in his obligations to record details of his encounter with Cross and Paul.Why do I believe that?Be cause I have studied the Police code for that time.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old Today, 08:50 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Why do I believe that?Be cause I have studied the Police code for that time.
You can't even get your story straight Harry. On Thursday you told me:

"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."

Now you seem to have abandoned the claim that it was a principle of law and now are now saying that the principle IS in the police code despite having told me it isn't!

Prior to that you told me that your knowledge came "from my own experience and training" but now you say you know what Mizen's training would have been and what a policeman's obligations were in 1888.

You really are making it up as you go along Harry and this is not "personnel (sic) insults".

But if you are saying that a policeman's obligation in 1888 was to take particulars in non-criminal/non-accident cases please provide some authority. Because your own beliefs based on no evidence are not good enough.
__________________
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 03:14 PM.


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