The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[drstrange169]

>>I think that "respectable" women of all classes kept themselves out of situations that might harm their reputations ... <<

As the "Cass" case mere months before showed, being an unaccompanied female even in broad daylight in a respectable area, was enough for a policeman to arrest her for prostitution!

[John G]

Hi John,

I'm no expert on this and I haven't read the Police Code (maybe I should) but surely the point is that whether Mizen had been told that Nichols was dead or drunk he had no way of knowing at the time that a crime, or indeed an accident, had occurred. For all he knew at the time Nichols could have just collapsed (like Mrs Byrne.)

Hi Herlock,

In cases of strict liability knowledge, or fault, is irrelevant: http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/resources...ict-liability/

On the face of it, the police code of the period imposed strict liabilty. In other words an officer was required to take down particulars in respect of accidents or a criminal case. This requirement isn't qualified, i.e there is no mention of a that the officer had to be reasonably aware that the incident was an accident or criminal case.

Now, of course, it could be that the Code wasn't meant to be read litterally. However, in that case we would need to read additional words into the regulations, which calls for speculation.

David argues that it would be an accident or a criminal case simply because a witness said it was such. But why should the witness be the final arbitrator? And if that was the case what was the point of an inquest? And what if the witness was lying.

Conversely, I simply argue that the 0fficer would have been required to exercise reasonable judgement, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

Of course, in these circumstances PC Mizen wasn't necessarily at fault, even though he'd been informed a woman was lying, possibly dead, so it's possible a crime or accident could have taken place. And a prudent officer may have taken particulars in such a case.

But ultimately it's all down to perception: did PC Mizen believe his superiors would take a hard line, harshly imposing the Code according to its literal meaning, given that a brutal murder had taken place, inevitably attracting a lot of press interest.

[John G]

Well, if her father had been an officer and she married a non-com, wouldn't she have married down?

And that might indicate a somewhat rebellious nature, right? A woman who did not live strictly by the rules?

curious

Yes, that seems a fair point. And, as I noted earlier, would such strict rules apply to the lower middle classes?

[curious]

I just don't buy the dancing club explanation. An earlier post quotes contemporary evidence that the boots in the parcel were "new", which suggests they were a purchase for either Georgina or her sister.

You said you liked dancing, Curious-- ever go dancing in new shoes fresh from the manufacturer?

Let's see what facts we know about Mrs. Bryne:
-- She's the widow of a non-commissioned army officer, with a young son.
-- The boy is with her parents, presumably while she was working.
-- Work for women in Victorian times was limited, according to some research I did last night, so she might have been in a factory or a shop as a saleslady. Either would fit with the respectable options for middle-class women.
-- Her employer confirmed she had left work for the day.
-- Her father didn't know why she was traveling to London, but assumed it was to visit her sister.
-- She had some money, the parcel of shoes, and a umbrella with her when she collapsed on the street.
-- We don't know why she was walking at night, possibly alone, without other luggage, and with money to hire a cab or carriage.
-- We don't know who the well-dressed man was, or if he was really her "husband", but it seems to be a lie, given that her family knew nothing of him.
-- Could the man have been a thief, con-man, or pickpocket? Certainly, and the papers suggested as much, since one story said something along the lines that she might have been robbed of everything if the police hadn't come along when they did.

Conclusion: We don't know everything, but it could have been attempted robbery.

You're right, it could have been an attempted robbery. We just don't know what happened.

Her employment was assisting in the management of a fruiterer's business in Guildhall Street, according to a Sept. 11 article in The Hull Daily Mail.

I wasn't married to the idea of dancing as I don't know of dancing clubs or even a private party she may have been attending. The shoes appearing new doesn't bother me as the soles would not have been scuffed if they had been worn only indoors once or twice, and therefore the shoes could still appear new after being worn once or twice.

HOWEVER, lugging the shoes around at 11 p.m. on a Saturday night bugs me greatly. I was mentally covering everything I could come up with as a possible explanation for having an extra pair of shoes. Going through everything I could think of for which we carry an extra pair of shoes: hiking, obviously not; driving, not applicable. Dancing was the only thing I could come up with.

Were patent leather shoes an evening or day shoe in 1888? Mentally exploring . .

SO, I went back to re-read everything.

Post No. 18 by Jerry D: an article from The Post for Monday, Sept. 10:

she had been carrying: "a reticule, parasol with bow handle, mounted in silver, and a brush and comb in a white calico bag . . . A paper parcel containing a pair of boots and other articles."

So, she was also still carrying a parasol. Weren't they used only in the daytime and as a sunshade? Interesting that her brush and comb were in a white calico bag and not her reticule.

However, the most enlightening part was that the paper parcel contained articles other than the boots.

It's possible that instead of a valise or bag, she had her overnight things in that paper parcel and had not been anywhere to drop them off as she came from Canterbury to where ever her final destination for the night was going to be.

So, I give up on the dancing . . .

And John G, in answer to your question: Yes, that seems a fair point. And, as I noted earlier, would such strict rules apply to the lower middle classes?

I have no idea.

curious

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

In cases of strict liability knowledge, or fault, is irrelevant: http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/resources...ict-liability/

On the face of it, the police code of the period imposed strict liabilty. In other words an officer was required to take down particulars in respect of accidents or a criminal case. This requirement isn't qualified, i.e there is no mention of a that the officer had to be reasonably aware that the incident was an accident or criminal case.

Now, of course, it could be that the Code wasn't meant to be read litterally. However, in that case we would need to read additional words into the regulations, which calls for speculation.

David argues that it would be an accident or a criminal case simply because a witness said it was such. But why should the witness be the final arbitrator? And if that was the case what was the point of an inquest? And what if the witness was lying.

Conversely, I simply argue that the 0fficer would have been required to exercise reasonable judgement, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

Of course, in these circumstances PC Mizen wasn't necessarily at fault, even though he'd been informed a woman was lying, possibly dead, so it's possible a crime or accident could have taken place. And a prudent officer may have taken particulars in such a case.

But ultimately it's all down to perception: did PC Mizen believe his superiors would take a hard line, harshly imposing the Code according to its literal meaning, given that a brutal murder had taken place, inevitably attracting a lot of press interest.

Hi John,

Thanks for the explaination.

[David Orsam]

>>The point that David was making on discovering and posting this incident was that Mizen has been criticised for allowing CL and Paul to go on their way without taking their details. <<

Of course, the circumstances are very different between the two incidents.

Mizen was engaged in a duty (knocking up) and was requested to, not only, leave his beat, but cease his lawful duty and enter another police division's jurisdiction by two, arguable suspicious characters.

In this case, Duffin came upon an incident that was on his beat, in a crowded street.

The issue being discussed is whether an officer was required, under the terms of the police code, to take particulars of individuals in circumstances of a lady lying in the street, so the issues of knocking up and being on a different beat are irrelevant.

If you think that I was saying the two incidents were identical you have obviously misunderstood me.

[David Orsam]

The one person allowed to leave in search of help had voluntarily identified himself, albeit falsely.

I don't know why you say "allowed to leave". Duffin had no power to stop anyone leaving other than carrying out an arrest.

And I do like the euphemism that the man "voluntarily identified himself, albeit falsely". Another way of saying this is that he lied!

Or we could say that Charles Cross "voluntarily mentioned that there was another officer in Bucks Row, albeit falsely".

[David Orsam]

But these "two" were merely part of an, apperantly, large crowd.

So what? Duffin still couldn't possibly have known if the woman had been murdered or simply fallen over and bumped her head until he investigated the situation. Just as Mizen couldn't have known if the woman in Bucks Row had collapsed with a diseased heart or was drunk etc.

Because the circumstances are so vastly different, for me at least, I see no real connection.

Do you not agree that at least one of the men, possibly both, left the crime scene, with one of them telling a direct lie in order to provide an excuse to leave and the officer apparently taking no details?

If so, I suggest there is a blatantly obvious similarity. If not, please explain why those things did not happen.

[David Orsam]

Duffin was aware that Byrne was still alive,that she appeared to need medical help.His duty and attention was to the woman.He put this duty first.No fault there.There was no signs of violence,and the two persons with her appeared to be helping,so no need for Duffin to be suspicious.

You may not be aware of this Harry but no-one is criticizing PC Duffin.

[David Orsam]

Two things I am not sure of.Did the man mention husband or was he misinterpreted.Did he in fact go to find a doctor?

Hooray! At last, after 148 posts, someone questions whether PC Duffin's account was true!!! Harry, I hoped it would be you and you have not let me down.

[David Orsam]

As the "Cass" case mere months before showed, being an unaccompanied female even in broad daylight in a respectable area, was enough for a policeman to arrest her for prostitution!

It wasn’t actually. PC Endacott had to inform the custody sergeant and the magistrate that he had seen her pestering men.

[David Orsam]

On the face of it, the police code of the period imposed strict liabilty.

Of course it doesn't do this on the face of it John, it's utterly impossible.

The Police Code was a privately published book (by Cassell & Co) and had no official or legal status. The Code itself could not possibly impose strict liability, or indeed any kind of liability at all.

[David Orsam]

In other words an officer was required to take down particulars in respect of accidents or a criminal case.

John - leaving aside that you are confusing the legal concept of "strict liability" with your odd, literal interpretation of the police code, the code does not actually say what you have represented it to say.

The actual wording of the code (under the heading "Misconduct of Police") is this:

"1.The following are the faults most likely to be committed, and against which the young constables should particularly guard, for entries on the defaulter sheet in the first years of service will materially reduce the possibility of eventual promotion for the prizes of the service:-

...

(27) Neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or case of accident."

It doesn't actually state that neglecting to obtain names is misconduct, only that constables should guard against such neglect to avoid being passed over for promotion. However, let's assume that the heading of the section does mean that it could lead to a charge of misconduct. Can this be interpreted in a way consistent with one might want to call "strict liability"? The answer is no it can't.

For look at the wording. It says that the offence is neglecting to obtain "necessary" names etc. So a judgement is required here by someone to decide what names are necessary. There cannot, in other words, possibly be any kind of automatic punishment for failing to take names because someone first has to decide what names are necessary.

Then there are other issues of interpretation of the code:

Firstly, it doesn't say which officer is required to take the names and particulars. Why should it have been Mizen? Strictly speaking it could apply to every officer in London or none of them. Indeed, as soon as a crime occurs anywhere in London, on your view, officers should be running around taking particulars of everyone they can find even if they don't even know of the occurrence of the crime!!

If you say, oh it only applies to officers present at the scene that is already moving away from a strict literal interpretation but even if you take that view then what about Neil and Thain. Why didn't they knock on doors and take particulars of the local residents? Did they note the names and addresses of everyone who subsequently walked down Bucks Row? if so why did Neil refer at the inquest to "a man who had passed down Buck's row while the doctor was present". Why didn't he take HIS name? Was his failure to do so a breach of the Police Code? It was clearly a criminal case so, on your strict interpretation, he and Thain were required to take names and addresses.

Secondly, it doesn't say particulars should be taken when a criminal case or accident is reported to an officer does it? So why should Mizen have taken the names of two men who reported a criminal case to him (had they actually done so). The Code does not state that when someone reports a criminal case the officer should take that person's details. So on "strict liability", Mizen is totally in the clear.

Thirdly, what happened in the case of Mizen was two men coming up to speak to him. That itself was not a criminal case or an accident. It was a conversation. The code does not say anything about recording details of people who an officer converses with in the street. So following the code, on your "strict liability", there was nothing for Mizen to do.

Fourthly, the code does not say when the particulars need to be taken. Now its obvious what it means but if one is strictly interpreting the code, Mizen had an unlimited amount of time to track down Cross and Paul and ask them for their particulars.

Finally what happened if the witness refused to give particulars? No-one was obliged to give details to a police officer upon request. But on your interpretation if the officer failed to obtain the details he was automatically guilty of misconduct!!!! It's pure Alice in Wonderland stuff.

That is why, John, your interpretation of the police code is ridiculous. It doesn't apply any common sense or relate to the real world. The simple fact is that an officer couldn't be guilty of not taking details in a criminal case when he didn't know that a crime had actually occurred.

[David Orsam]

David argues that it would be an accident or a criminal case simply because a witness said it was such.

No he doesn’t! That is to completely misrepresent what I have (repeatedly) said. My point is that an officer has to know of the existence of an accident or a crime. Any other interpretation would be bizarre and wrong.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;428045]

Of course it doesn't do this on the face of it John,

it's utterly impossible.

"Utterly impossible" is impossible.

It is either impossible or possible.