The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, I am not wrong about this. I have repeatedly brought to your attention The Code's requirement that an officer take particulars in a criminal case or an accident. And the Nichols' case was a criminal case.

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.)

[Pcdunn]

Dancing in new boots?

See, that was one of my questions: did clubs for people of both genders exist there in Blackfriars at the time? That was what I meant I needed to research. While the extra pair of shoes and no luggage for an overnight says "dancing" to me, I have no idea if such places existed. On the other hand, during Prohibition here in the States, when things were very much stricter than they are today, speakeasies were certainly available for people to attend.

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.

[curious]

She may well have done. And if she had a window's pension, might she not lose that entitlement if she remarried? In fact, she must have been relatively well off, considering she had £2 10s in gold on her person, as well as a gold watch and chain. And wasn't her father an officer? I wonder how that would have impacted on her class status!

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

[John G]

You're probably a better judge of that than I.

Would she have a small income or pension from that?

curious

She may well have done. And if she had a window's pension, might she not lose that entitlement if she remarried? In fact, she must have been relatively well off, considering she had £2 10s in gold on her person, as well as a gold watch and chain. And wasn't her father an officer? I wonder how that would have impacted on her class status!

[Pierre]

No, I am not wrong about this. I have repeatedly brought to your attention The Code's requirement that an officer take particulars in a criminal case or an accident. And the Nichols' case was a criminal case. The question therefore was whether The Code imposed strict liability-and I have explained what strict liability means in legal terms. You may be also interested to know that the current solicitors' Code of Conduct imposes strict liability: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysi.../54784.article

What I would argue is that an officer would be expected to exercise his judgment sensibly. As regards, PC Duffin I'm not sure he did do the right thing. I think it could be argued he should have interrogated the man-I mean, he'd have looked pretty stupid if it turned out she'd been mugged! However, I suppose he was put in a difficult position when the man claimed to be the woman's husband- a claim he presumably had no reason to question- and then stated he was going to fetch a doctor, highlighting the possible seriousness of the situation.

So Mizen should have taken out his little drone and sent it flying over Polly Nichols in Buck“s Row. And Duffin should have taken out his little x-ray and put it on Byrne.

You know what, John. In 1888 the had to just use their own senses.

[David Orsam]

No, I am not wrong about this. I have repeatedly brought to your attention The Code's requirement that an officer take particulars in a criminal case or an accident.

And as I have said to you repeatedly, the Code could not possibly, and did not, require officers to be psychic or have superhuman powers of hindsight.

You are only confusing yourself with your constant mention of "strict liability" which is why you are ending up in a logical cul de sac.

[curious]

I've just read the article Jerry posted again, and it states that she was the widow of a sergeant-major. As this was a non-commissioned officer rank I would have thought she would be regarded as lower middle class at best.

You're probably a better judge of that than I.

Would she have a small income or pension from that?

curious

[John G]

No we don't "both" know that John. I have repeatedly said you are wrong about this.

The hypothetical example you have given about "Stan Slasher" is misguided because that involves actually arresting a criminal. It's got nothing to do with taking particulars.

The total flaw in your thinking can be shown by the fact that the post-mortem of Georgina Byrne could have shown that she was strangled (and thus murdered).

So on your weird reading of the Police Code, PC Duffin, who you agree did the right thing in not taking particulars, now stands guilty of a misconduct charge even though absolutely nothing had changed from his perspective!!!

That's just madness.

No, I am not wrong about this. I have repeatedly brought to your attention The Code's requirement that an officer take particulars in a criminal case or an accident. And the Nichols' case was a criminal case. The question therefore was whether The Code imposed strict liability-and I have explained what strict liability means in legal terms. You may be also interested to know that the current solicitors' Code of Conduct imposes strict liability: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysi.../54784.article

What I would argue is that an officer would be expected to exercise his judgment sensibly. As regards, PC Duffin I'm not sure he did do the right thing. I think it could be argued he should have interrogated the man-I mean, he'd have looked pretty stupid if it turned out she'd been mugged! However, I suppose he was put in a difficult position when the man claimed to be the woman's husband- a claim he presumably had no reason to question- and then stated he was going to fetch a doctor, highlighting the possible seriousness of the situation.

[curious]

Originally Posted by curious View Post
Hi, Herlock,
1. But was she alone? I don't really think so. I think she was with top-hat guy, so it is his actions and their association that become questionable.

I agree, and said it in an earlier post, that it's possible/likely that she was with Top Hat Man.

2. Cash and valuables -- if she had come to London to stay overnight without any family members knowing, would she not need the cash for an inn or hotel, food, cabs, etc.? I think she was kicking up her heels a bit, privately, and not necessarily engaged in anything illegal or immoral.

It would be interesting to know if it was a man's watch and, if so, who it belonged to?

3. Shoulder bruising -- In Post No. 16 David pointed out that was not mentioned at the inquest and appeared to have been wrong in the original newspaper article. "Yes I read that about the bruises in one report but it wasn't (apparently) mentioned at the inquest so presumably not true."

True. I wonder where the story of the bruises came from? It wouldn't have been from anyone at the scene though. You would have thought that it could only have come from those present when she was fully examined (after death?)

4. Someone appearing to search clothing could be:
a. Feeling for a heartbeat or pulse;
b. I believe that women sometimes carried "Smelling Salts" in their pockets. Today, people with asthma and allergies carry inhalers and epi pins, so if her companions thought Mrs. Byran had fainted they could have been looking for smelling salts to revive her.

Possibly. Seems a bit strange to me though.

5. The 64-million dollar question

I think that, as it's likely that he was with her, that he told the other man that she was his wife when he came over to help to avoid embarrassment. He then had to continue the lie when Duffin showed up.

6. so they would not be involved or have their names in official reports or the newspapers. Perhaps to keep from answering questions that would ruin her reputation -- and theirs -- depending upon what was really going on.

Agreed. A bit heartless though. He could have informed a doctor and then fled?

7. another 64-million dollar question -- especially since she did not have any other luggage for an overnight stay in London. There were theaters in the district, but I don't think you take extra shoes to watch a show. Dancing is the only thing I can come up with, and I don't know the Blackfriars district well enough to know what entertainment venues were available there in 1888.

Maybe she'd collected them from being repaired?

I agree with you -- enough to call it a mystery. Probably enough to besmirch her reputation, but less perhaps than it would have been if her "husband" had stayed around long enough to answer questions.

We would certainly like to know more. It's a petty that Duffin didn't ask a few more questions of the second man when Top Hat Man went for the 'Doctor?'

curious

I bet that there are hundreds of curious little episodes just waiting to be discovered?

Hi, Herlock,
1. you did indeed
2. what I envision is a woman's watch, which were worn on the shoulder, attached with a chain which they pulled out to see the time and then returned to its holder on the shoulder.
3. It is interesting that so often original stories in newspapers seem to have details that never show up again.
4. curious indeed -- the appearing to search the clothing. I'm not sure what percentage of women carried their "smelling salts" with them. At first, when she slumped down, he probably thought she had fainted. It was only when she didn't come around that he realized it was more serious.
5. Agree
6. What if he wasn't from Blackfriars or London himself? How would he have even known where to find a doctor? We don't know but that he did look, but wasn't successful in finding anyone to send. Makes me wonder if there wasn't a man in Canterbury who got safely back home and knew lots more about the mysterious incident than anyone else in town.
7. I could see collecting them from being repaired, except if so
a. why was there only the name of a Canterbury merchant and not the London repair shop?
b. surely, if she had had them repaired in Canterbury, she would have left them at home, or not have picked them up until Monday, or if required to pick them up on Saturday afternoon, taking them straight to London with her, why not leave them with her other belongings instead of carrying them around at 11 p.m.?


and I bet your end comment is exactly right -- many, many curious little incidents that would make perfect sense if we had the whole story.

curious

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;427946]

And we both know, David, that a strict reading of The Code meant that he was required to take particulars in a criminal case and, on that basis, he was in clear violation of his responsibilities.

THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL CASE WHEN CROSS TALKED TO MIZEN.

If The Code didn't impose strict liability then additional words have to be read into it. You bravely argue that it would require a case to be reported to him as a criminal case. I do not think that can be the case. I mean, consider a scenario where PC Mizen discovers a woman lying in the street with blood dripping from her neck and a man stood over her carrying a knife dripping on blood:

PC Mizen: "What's going on here."

Stan Slasher: " Its okay officer, this isn't an accident or a criminal case".

PC Mizen: "Okay sir. I best be on my way. Sorry to have troubled you."

Do you see a problem with the above scenario?

What is this?

That's why I say he would be have been expected to act reasonably, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

HE COULD NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT HE DID NOT SEE AND WHAT HE DID NOT KNOW.

Now, I don't say it was likely that he would have faced misconduct charges, even though he was informed there was a woman lying, possibly dead, at least according to Cross, so realistically a crime or accident could have taken place.

IT WAS NOT CRIMINAL TO DIE IN THE STREET, NOT IN BUCK`S ROW AND NOT IN BLACKFRIARS-ROAD.

[John G]

I think that "respectable" women of all classes kept themselves out of situations that might harm their reputations, especially in the Victorian era. The rules for respectability were much stricter up to the 1950s (at least here in the U.S.) and even today in small towns.

However, I suspect there have always been "fast sets" who did as they pleased -- drank, smoked, danced, partied, but who perhaps went out of town to do so. As long as the town busybodies didn't hear about it, the reputation was probably ok.

Victorian rules were so horrible for widows that a young widow's life was over almost before it began.

curious

Yes, I believe a widow was expected to mourn the death of her husband for at least 2 years. However, would such stringent rules apply to the lower middle classes?

[David Orsam]

And we both know, David, that a strict reading of The Code meant that he was required to take particulars in a criminal case and, on that basis, he was in clear violation of his responsibilities.

No we don't "both" know that John. I have repeatedly said you are wrong about this.

The hypothetical example you have given about "Stan Slasher" is misguided because that involves actually arresting a criminal. It's got nothing to do with taking particulars.

The total flaw in your thinking can be shown by the fact that the post-mortem of Georgina Byrne could have shown that she was strangled (and thus murdered).

So on your weird reading of the Police Code, PC Duffin, who you agree did the right thing in not taking particulars, now stands guilty of a misconduct charge even though absolutely nothing had changed from his perspective!!!

That's just madness.

[curious]

I still think it's a pity that, while Top Hat Man was away, Duffin didn't get any background information from the other man?

I think David mentioned that the news reports originally said two men, but the inquest and perhaps later reports mentioned only one.

curious

[Abby Normal]

And we both know, David, that a strict reading of The Code meant that he was required to take particulars in a criminal case and, on that basis, he was in clear violation of his responsibilities.

If The Code didn't impose strict liability then additional words have to be read into it. You bravely argue that it would require a case to be reported to him as a criminal case. I do not think that can be the case. I mean, consider a scenario where PC Mizen discovers a woman lying in the street with blood dripping from her neck and a man stood over her carrying a knife dripping on blood:

PC Mizen: "What's going on here."

Stan Slasher: " Its okay officer, this isn't an accident or a criminal case".

PC Mizen: "Okay sir. I best be on my way. Sorry to have troubled you."

Do you see a problem with the above scenario?

That's why I say he would be have been expected to act reasonably, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. Now, I don't say it was likely that he would have faced misconduct charges, even though he was informed there was a woman lying, possibly dead, at least according to Cross, so realistically a crime or accident could have taken place.

Ultimately, it's whether PC Mizen believed there was risk he could've have been in trouble. And considering this was arguably an unprecedented crime, which attracted a lot of press interest, that may have been the case.

You've got to be kidding. If PCS were supposed to take particulars of every possible crime they'd be spending all there time jotting down useless information.
They weren't clairvoyant or mind readers.
Your dead wrong on this.

[John G]

Very interesting, John. Thanks.

Nothing about widows, and according to "Gone with the Wind," widows in the U.S. at least were allowed almost nothing. Scarlett, being Scarlett, and it being a time of war, did not allow widowhood to keep her from living a full life. There is always what is "proper" and what people really do.

Do you think that with an estate of just over 100 pounds Mrs. Byrne was not really in the upper crust but in the "respectable" class?

See, that was one of my questions: did clubs for people of both genders exist there in Blackfriars at the time? That was what I meant I needed to research. While the extra pair of shoes and no luggage for an overnight says "dancing" to me, I have no idea if such places existed. On the other hand, during Prohibition here in the States, when things were very much stricter than they are today, speakeasies were certainly available for people to attend.

I don't know what was in Blackfriars in 1888.

Sorry, David, I know we've wandered far from your intended subject of the police action on this one.

curious

I've just read the article Jerry posted again, and it states that she was the widow of a sergeant-major. As this was a non-commissioned officer rank I would have thought she would be regarded as lower middle class at best.