The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[Abby Normal]

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

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

[drstrange169]

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

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.

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.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

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


>>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?<<

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

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

See all previous answers.
__________________

[drstrange169]

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

Just a turn of phrase on my part, nothing sinister implied by it.

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

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

Presumably so, unless it was a bigamous marriage.

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

Not really, no.

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

[drstrange169]

>>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 ...<<

I don't have a problem with the police code, it seems clear enough. For me it's more a question of prudence.

>>...so the issues of knocking up and being on a different beat are irrelevant.<<

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.

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

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

[Abby Normal]

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.

Just goes to show that people don't (and probably shouldn't) assume a police officer lies when he really doesn't need to! Or any evidence that he did!

[harry]

Why me,David? Have I made something else up?
I question everyones memory of events.Muffin was under more pressure than Mizen,but in my opinion acted more promptly.While I believe Mizen lied,any error on Muffin's part was due to the circumstances presented.Not that I perceive any error.
Trying to raise her up, was I believe,an important observation.How do two people raise another up.One each side,grasping by the upper arms and shoulders.No surprise then that the only marks were superficial bruising in that area of the body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

"As to Sir Leicester, he conceives it utterly impossible that anything can be wanting, in any direction, by any one who has the good fortune to be received under that roof; and in a state of sublime satisfaction, he moves among the company, a magnificent refrigerator."

Bleak House

and

"I think it impossible, utterly impossible, for any Englishman to live here, and be happy."

Letter from America, 1841

Shall we also ask W.H. Auden?

"Recent history has made it utterly impossible for the most unsophisticated and ignorant audience to ignore the historical reality of the Jews and think of them as fairy-story bogeys with huge noses and red wigs."

One doesn't need to be English, though, for we could also ask Tolstoy:

"The place was taken, and whenever he tried to imagine any of the girls he knew in that place, he felt that it was utterly impossible."

Anna Karenina

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.

Or would it be a 'one-off instance?'

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;428069]

or impossible or possible with an adjective in front of it.

example-It is utterly possible that pierre might be a troll.

Abby are you suggesting that Pierre lives under a bridge?

[David Orsam]

"Utterly impossible" is impossible.

It is either impossible or possible.

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

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

"As to Sir Leicester, he conceives it utterly impossible that anything can be wanting, in any direction, by any one who has the good fortune to be received under that roof; and in a state of sublime satisfaction, he moves among the company, a magnificent refrigerator."

Bleak House

and

"I think it impossible, utterly impossible, for any Englishman to live here, and be happy."

Letter from America, 1841

Shall we also ask W.H. Auden?

"Recent history has made it utterly impossible for the most unsophisticated and ignorant audience to ignore the historical reality of the Jews and think of them as fairy-story bogeys with huge noses and red wigs."

One doesn't need to be English, though, for we could also ask Tolstoy:

"The place was taken, and whenever he tried to imagine any of the girls he knew in that place, he felt that it was utterly impossible."

Anna Karenina

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.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Pierre;428062]

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

"Utterly impossible" is impossible.

It is either impossible or possible.

or impossible or possible with an adjective in front of it.

example-It is utterly possible that pierre might be a troll.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.