The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[drstrange169]

>>So you are saying mizen was wrong then to leave his beat?<<

I'm saying he left himself open to criticism.

[David Orsam]

She was, in other words, seen pestering three men and arrested for such behaviour.

Just to be clear: that was the allegation, I don't say it was necessarily true.

[David Orsam]

For you, Oscar, yes.

Perhaps we can continue this conversation, my dear boy, once you have learnt to speak English.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, what an embarrassing post.

For you, Oscar, yes.

[David Orsam]

Oh dear Oscar, would it be fair to say thay you have no education in statistics?

Letīs not. Letīs use modern science instead of Dickens:

http://www.statisticshowto.com/binary-variable-2/

HAHAHA! You live in the world of Dickens and speak to people on a forum in 2017 as if it was 1841!!!



Pierre

Oh my dear boy, what an embarrassing post.

[David Orsam]

Well, it comes down to which version you believe.

You presumably believe Endacott and not Elizabeth Cass and the Warren inquiry witness, Walford. Both of whom claimed she was not "pestering men" when she was arrested.

No, it doesn't come down to that. What I am saying is that an officer had no right to arrest an unaccompanied woman for walking down the street

You said: "being an unaccompanied female even in broad daylight in a respectable area, was enough for a policeman to arrest her for prostitution!".

I'm saying that wasn't enough.

I'd have to check, but I don't believe Cass was charged with "pestering" men, rather that Endacott claimed he knew her to be a regular prostitute that he supposedly had been watching for many days.

If you do check, will find that this was the evidence of P.C. Endacott at the Police Court on 29 June 1887:

"Bowen Endacott, 42 DR.—At 9.30 last night in Regent Street prisoner (meaning Miss Cass) and another got hold of a gent who got away; prisoner caught hold of two more gents; one said in her hearing 'It's very hard I should be stopped; it's the third time I have been stopped in this street.' Have seen her there three times in the last six weeks; from her manner I believe her to be a prostitute; the other woman was with her."

She was, in other words, seen pestering three men and arrested for such behaviour.

[David Orsam]

As far as Duffin knew, he had details. The man was her husband and he was going to fetch medical help.

But Duffin didn't know the woman's name. Her identity was only discovered by tracing the address on the parcel.

And it doesn't change the fact that the man told Duffin a direct lie does it?

[David Orsam]

Not so. Mizen couldn't possibly know that there actually was a woman in Buck's Row and that is the big difference.

He "couldn't possibly know" there was a woman in Bucks Row? Really? Well he hadn't seen it with his own eyes but two men had just reported this to him. What kind of knowledge did he need?

[David Orsam]

Mr. 'top hat" was identifying himself (albeit falsely), Xmere never identified himself, falsely or otherwise and Mizen never asked him to.

Right, so both men lied didn't they? They were different lies, of course, but both lies. And both men walked off after having told a lie to a police officer. There's the similarity right there.

[David Orsam]

Duffin had the opportunity to ask the man to stay and help his "wife", but chose not to.

Why would Duffin have even considered preventing the man from seeking medical assistance for the woman he thought was his wife?

[David Orsam]

No misunderstanding, as I have pointed, I just see no real connection between two vastly different scenarios, still don't.

No, because you are confusing "identical" with "similar" and then arguing that because they are not identical that means there are no similarities.

[David Orsam]

Not really, your quote above is specifically vague. One PC saw a women lying in the street, on his beat, surrounded by a large number of witnesses and acted accordingly.

The other policeman, heard a vague, disputed story and apparently stopped performing his duty to go to another divisions territory leaving his beat unattended and, presumably, his knocking up unfinished.

In such a case it would have been prudent to gain more information from the two men telling him the unsubstantiated story.

"vague, disputed story"? What does that mean? How was a specific report of a woman lying in Bucks Row vague? And how was it disputed?

What more information did Mizen need? And what more information could the carmen have given him?

[David Orsam]

Why me,David? Have I made something else up?

That's a strange question Harry. How was I saying you had made something up? I was celebrating the fact that you were questioning PC Duffin's evidence.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;428070]

Oh my dear boy, would it be fair to say that English is your second language?

Oh dear Oscar, would it be fair to say thay you have no education in statistics?

Let's ask one of the greatest living English authors, Charles Dickens, what he thinks about it:

Letīs not. Letīs use modern science instead of Dickens:

http://www.statisticshowto.com/binary-variable-2/

My dear boy, I could literally give you a million examples.

Not for the first time, your attempt to correct my English fails miserably.

I can't say it's utterly impossible that one day you will get something right but it hasn't quite happened yet.

My dear Oscar, I could give you a million examples.

Not for the first time, your attempt to correct my scientific point fails miserably.

I canīt say it is impossible that one day you will get something right but it hasnīt quite happened yet.

And...

HAHAHA! You live in the world of Dickens and speak to people on a forum in 2017 as if it was 1841!!!



Pierre

[harry]

What if Muffin observed was two men forcing the woman down,and not raising her up?