The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[drstrange169]

>>Seems to me like you are struggling. Mizen didn't need to know "exactly" where the body was, having been told it was in Bucks Row, they already told him what they saw (a woman lying in the street), it was obvious why a policeman needed him and equally obvious that the two men were going to work. So all those questions would have been a waste of time. They are certainly not questions that anyone would have expected Mizen to ask in the circumstances.<<

I guess a lot of crims would be very happy to have policeman who was as trusting as you appear to be.

Had a shop been robbed by two men that night at the corner of Hanbury and Baker's do you think the Mizen's superoirs would have been commended him for his diligence?

Of course he should have asked questions, it's a no brainer, Mizen left himself wide open.

[Abby Normal]

>>so then I guess hes dammed if he did, dammed if he didn't. Critisized for continuing to knock up and not going quick enough, or not going at all or going. Poor guy cant catch a break.<<

When constabulary duties to be done, to be done, a policeman's lot is not a happy one .

No. no it's not.

[drstrange169]

I don't see the point in pretending, that would mean I am deliberately lying and I don't see the point in that either.

[drstrange169]

>> ... a police officer had no right or grounds to stop him doing so.<<
I haven't claimed otherwise. I have been writing about practicality.

[drstrange169]

>>Can you answer this Dusty: Assuming that Mizen did lie about there being a police officer in Bucks Row, and that Top Hat man did lie about being the woman's husband, would you not admit that there is then a similarity between the two scenarios in that, in each case, a man lied to a police officer as he walked away from the scene of an incident which involved a woman lying on the ground?<<

Um ... no!

Mizen would have been a police officer lying to an inquest and "Top Hat" would have been a man in the street lying to a police officer.

[drstrange169]

>>You think he should have carried out a full investigation of the situation before proceeding to Bucks Row? Okay. <<

A full investigation?

When people start to make exaggerated claims about what there opponent is debating, it's probably time to stop.

No, I have never suggested Mizen carry out a full investigation, just ask a couple of commonsense questions.

Clearly, I will not persuade you and you will not sway me, the matter isn't that important enough to get acrimonious about, Duffin's tale is an interesting one one the less, so thank you for highlighting it.

[Abby Normal]

>>You think he should have carried out a full investigation of the situation before proceeding to Bucks Row? Okay. <<

A full investigation?

When people start to make exaggerated claims about what there opponent is debating, it's probably time to stop.

No, I have never suggested Mizen carry out a full investigation, just ask a couple of commonsense questions.

Clearly, I will not persuade you and you will not sway me, the matter isn't that important enough to get acrimonious about, Duffin's tale is an interesting one one the less, so thank you for highlighting it.

Hi strange phd.
Let me ask you this. If you were mizen and or this pc what would you have you done?

Be honest.

[drstrange169]

>> Yes and in response to that claim there was a huge public uproar and Endacott found himself the subject of an inquiry and then being charged with perjury. So it wasn't exactly a normal situation was it?<<

I'm happy to be corrected as I'm going from memory and that's not always good these days, but as I remember it, it was the Magistrate's comments that caused the outrage and drew attention to the case. The story may have slipped by but for his attack on Cass and her employer.

>>She was arrested for the pestering. There was no actual evidence of soliciting, which was inferred.<<

“I saw her take hold of two or three gentlemen, and I heard her solicit for prostitution, and I took her into custody.”
PC Endacott told the desk sergeant who charged her.

>>...anyone, male or female, can be arrested today for walking along the street in broad daylight if the arresting officer fabricates evidence or has made a mistake of identity.<<

Yes, but even today certain groups are more likely to suffer that fate. In America the colour tone of your skin significantly increases the odds.

In Victorian Britain just being a woman put you at a significant disadvantage.

[drstrange169]

>>Let me ask you this. If you were mizen and or this pc what would you have you done? <<

Exactly what I have suggested in my posts. It's just common sense.

>>Be honest.<<

Can you point to an example of me being dishonest, that's rather offensive isn't it, what brought that on?

[David Orsam]

I guess a lot of crims would be very happy to have policeman who was as trusting as you appear to be.

Had a shop been robbed by two men that night at the corner of Hanbury and Baker's do you think the Mizen's superoirs would have been commended him for his diligence?

Of course he should have asked questions, it's a no brainer, Mizen left himself wide open.

You are talking about the issue of Mizen leaving his beat, something I've already said is irrelevant to this thread which deals with the specific issue of whether Mizen should have taken the particulars of the two men.

But I don’t know if your suggestion is that the carmen might have committed a robbery (about which Mizen could have used his judgement that they were obviously off to work and walking away from Bakers Row) or whether you think Mizen needed to ask questions to cover himself in case someone else committed a robbery. Either way it wouldn't have helped him. If the carmen were lying they would presumably have continued to tell lies in answer to all Mizen's questions, thus getting him nowhere. That is if they were willing to answer his questions at all which, as they were both late for work, is unlikely to have been the case. If they were telling the truth then Mizen was faced with the decision of whether or not to leave his beat, which is one that he had to make on his own, and asking 100 questions wouldn't have helped him to answer it. Ultimately, Mizen had to check the situation out for himself.

The only criticism ever made of Mizen in 1888 was for delay in going to Bucks Row so it is ironic that you are suggesting he should have delayed even further!!!

[David Orsam]

>> ... a police officer had no right or grounds to stop him doing so.<<
I haven't claimed otherwise. I have been writing about practicality.

You have actually Dusty. In #147 you said:

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

Your use of the word "allowed" presupposes that Duffin had some kind of right to stop him.

[David Orsam]

>>You think he should have carried out a full investigation of the situation before proceeding to Bucks Row? Okay. <<

A full investigation?

When people start to make exaggerated claims about what there opponent is debating, it's probably time to stop.

No, I have never suggested Mizen carry out a full investigation, just ask a couple of commonsense questions.

When people start to understate their case is when I suspect they realise they have lost the argument.

Earlier you listed FOUR questions which you said were off the top of your head, namely:

1. Where was the body exactly?

2. What did you see?

3. Why does a policeman need me?

4. Where are you going?

To which you added "etc. etc." clearly suggesting that there were even MORE questions Mizen should have asked.

Now you wish to characterise this as "a couple" of questions!!!

Even worse, it seems that you believe that the purpose of these questions was not simply for Mizen to get information but to establish whether the carmen were lying to him or not. So a proper interrogation in other words. I fail to see how this does not comprise a full investigation. What else do you think a full investigation would have entailed?

There are certainly plenty of other "common sense" questions that are presumably in your "etc etc":

1. How long ago did you find the body?

2. Who was first at the scene?

3. Did you touch the body?

4. Did you see any signs of violence?

5. Was she breathing?

6. Did you smell alcohol?

7. Did you notice anyone else in Bucks Row?

8. Where do you work?

9. What are your names

10. What are your addresses?

So Mizen could have been asking all these questions – we're up to 14 now – writing down the answers in his notebook, while at the same time he wasn't knocking up a local resident who needed to be woken to get to work and Nichols was lying in the road and he was wasting time asking all these unnecessary questions.

[David Orsam]

Um ... no!

Mizen would have been a police officer lying to an inquest and "Top Hat" would have been a man in the street lying to a police officer.

Dusty, there was an unfortunate (but obvious) error in my question to you, where I typed Mizen rather than Cross, and I would like to repeat it with the correction because your answer will demonstrate to me whether you are being reasonable or not:

Assuming that Cross did lie about there being a police officer in Bucks Row, and that Top Hat man did lie about being the woman's husband, would you not admit that there is then a similarity between the two scenarios in that, in each case, a man lied to a police officer as he walked away from the scene of an incident which involved a woman lying on the ground?

[David Orsam]

I'm happy to be corrected as I'm going from memory and that's not always good these days, but as I remember it, it was the Magistrate's comments that caused the outrage and drew attention to the case. The story may have slipped by but for his attack on Cass and her employer.

It's not really possible to separate the response to Endacott's action from the response to Mr Newton's comment but the magistrate's reported comment was this: (from Pall Mall Gazette of 30 June 1887):

"If you are a respectable girl, as you say you are don't walk Regent-street and stop gentlemen at ten o'clock at night. If you do you will be surely fined or sent to prison, after this caution I have given you."

Doesn’t that statement, with its emphasis on the lateness of the hour, rather contradict your claim about a woman walking along the street in "broad daylight" and that this was enough for her to be arrested?

[David Orsam]

>>She was arrested for the pestering. There was no actual evidence of soliciting, which was inferred.<<

“I saw her take hold of two or three gentlemen, and I heard her solicit for prostitution, and I took her into custody.”
PC Endacott told the desk sergeant who charged her.

I quoted you the official record of PC Endacott's evidence given at the police court. As you can read for yourself, there was no actual evidence of soliciting presented to the magistrate.

What is the source of the quote you have provided. Was it by any chance a modern article from the internet?

The contemporary reports from the evidence at the Home Office inquiry and at the old Bailey of an officer (Sergeant Morgan) who overheard the conversation between Endacott and the custody sergeant was that Endacott said:

"I saw her take hold of two or three gentleman and solicit".

The Times report of his Old Bailey evidence was: "I have seen her take hold of two or three gentlemen."

The same evidence as per the official proceedings of the Old Bailey was: "he said he had seen her that evening take hold of two or three gentlemen and accost them."

The notion that Endacott ever said the words "I heard her solicit for prostitution" seems to be either a modern invention, improving upon what was actually said, or otherwise taken from an inaccurate contemporary report.

Sergeant Morgan also said at the Old Bailey that he heard Endacott say that the charge was "Disorderly prostitute, annoying male passengers in Regent Street."

What she was charged with at the police court was "Being a common prostitute, annoying male passengers for the purpose of prostitution at Regent Street".

Exactly what I said to you about pestering men.