The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[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]

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!!!

[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?

[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.

[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]

>>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.

[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]

>> ... 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]

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.

[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]

>>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.

[drstrange169]

>>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 .

[David Orsam]

Considering The Code's requirement, under the heading Misconduct of Police, that an officer could be in breach for "neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars in a criminal case, or case of accident."

Who ultimately determines what are "necessary names and addresses?" It can't be the officer in question, otherwise they could simply argue that they didn't deem it necessary to take down names and addresses, and this element of the The Code would be rendered completely meaningless. No, logically it has to be the officer's superiors who would ultimately decide what was "necessary". And, in such circumstances, PC Mizen could not know for sure that he wouldn't be held in breach of The Code, or that he wouldn't face possible misconduct charges for neglect of duty.

Let's not lose sight of why I stressed the word "necessary". It was to demonstrate to you that one could not possibly apply the concept of "strict liability" to the part of the Police Code under discussion. That is because some form of human judgement needs to be introduced into the scenario.

Consequently, my argument was that Mizen would not automatically have got into trouble simply because it turned out that the woman who had been reported to him as dead or dying had actually been murdered.

The meaning of the word "necessary" is, therefore, irrelevant because once we accept that, for Mizen, it wasn't a criminal case or an accident at the time the report was made to him that is the end of it. He wasn't required to take ANY particulars full stop.

[David Orsam]

I would also point out, David, that I have consistently argued that the intention might not have been for The Code to be strictly applied.

You've been arguing lots of things John, including that "On the face of it, the police code of the period imposed strict liability."

In the final analysis, the issue is whether PC Mizen considered that he might realistically have faced misconduct charges, or some other form of disciplinary action.

The problem is that we then have to get inside Mizen's head. Surely we need to look at the situation objectively in which case we can see that there was no reasonable possibility of him facing misconduct charges or other form of disciplinary action according to the Police Code. That being so, it's hard to believe that he would realistically have been worried in any way.

If you have any other reason to think that Mizen would have been worried about his failure to take the mens' details then please tell us what it is.

As far as I can see, this entire argument is a wholly modern one which was never made by anyone in 1888, despite various criticisms of the police in the press.

[David Orsam]

Finally, irrespective of The Code, why do you say PC Mizen's conduct could not feasibly have amounted to a neglect of duty?

Once again, you are putting words into my mouth. Everything I have said has been in the context of the Code - so I haven't said anything "irrespective of the Code" - especially not that Mizen's conduct "could not feasibly" have amounted to a neglect of duty.

If you want to discuss the situation outside of the Code, and you think that Mizen's conduct feasibly amounted to a a neglect of duty regardless of the Code, then you need to state your case so that I can consider it.