The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[curious]

Hi Curious,

Some interesting points. Not sure if there would be any dance clubs. However, if the widow was of the middle classes I would have thought she would have to be careful to protect her reputation, i.e. considering that this was an era when, for this social group, holding hands with a man who was not her husband, or a relative, or someone she was engaged to, would be considered a breach of etiquette!

However, would such stringent rules apply to, say, the lower middle classes? I would agree that she wasn't in the upper crust, otherwise she would presumably have been returning home in a carriage.

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

[Pierre]

But we only know that with hindsight John. Duffin wouldn't have been blessed with 20/20 vision. That's why I said "The officer, when he arrives on the scene, cannot possibly know what has happened to her".

Same for Mizen. The body lying on the ground wasn't reported to him as a criminal case or accident so he couldn't possibly have known it would turn out to be a murder.

Explaining why neither of them needed to take particulars.

I donīt know if John understands your talk about "hindsight". The point is this:

A policeman M is on site B, being told by carman C that a woman is on site D. Not seeing a crime. Not taking details.

A policeman D is on site F directly, not seeing a crime. Not taking details.

This is obvious.

The situations were many:

PC X not seeing C (crime) > no details.

Why is that interesting?

[Pierre]

This is correct.

That is why I started this in the police officials and procedures thread.

Here we have an officer who literally finds two men standing over the body of a woman lying on the pavement in the dark. The woman could be dead or drunk or anything else. The officer, when he arrives on the scene, cannot possibly know what has happened to her or that she has a diseased heart. She might have been murdered or there might have been an accident. At least one of the men, possibly both, leave the crime scene, with one of the men telling a direct lie in order to provide an excuse to leave. The officer, apparently, takes no details of the men.

All seems eerily familiar to me.

No crime, no taking of details.

Not "eerily familiar". Just the same indication: lack of evidence for a crime.

With Mizen the lack of evidence is in the situation before he reaches the site. In the case of this PC the lack of evidence is in the situation where he is on the site.

[John G]

But we only know that with hindsight John. Duffin wouldn't have been blessed with 20/20 vision. That's why I said "The officer, when he arrives on the scene, cannot possibly know what has happened to her".

Same for Mizen. The body lying on the ground wasn't reported to him as a criminal case or accident so he couldn't possibly have known it would turn out to be a murder.

Explaining why neither of them needed to take particulars.

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.

[Pierre]

Hi drstrange,

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. To be honest most people (including myself) thought that Mizen was in error and it had been suggested (by myself and others) that he might have lied about what what CL and Paul told him to cover for that error. David showed, however, that as per the Police Code a Police Officer is only obliged to take details if an accident or a crime had been reported. This was the case in Buck's Row as it was in Blackfriars Road.
It's frustrating because I think that we'd all agree that the two men, especially Top Hat Man, deserved a serious question or two. As with Nichols, who was later found to have been murdered, the police would have wanted to question CL and Paul about events with the benefit of hindsight. The big difference of course is that CL and Paul turned up at the Inquest whereas our two mystery men have vanished.

Thereīs a big difference here. The PC in Blackfriars Road was in place directly and not fetched by anyone to the site.

[Pierre]

What I'm serious about is that I'm disappointed that no-one has even suggested that PC Duffin might have been lying about what two men, found standing over a dead body in the street, who disappeared from a possible crime scene, said to him before they walked off into the distance.

It's one rule for PC Duffin and another rule for PC Mizen.

Not my rule. PC Mizen was a sworn policeman who told the truth in court. That is my standpoint.

Pierre

[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

Hi Curious,

Some interesting points. Not sure if there would be any dance clubs. However, if the widow was of the middle classes I would have thought she would have to be careful to protect her reputation, i.e. considering that this was an era when, for this social group, holding hands with a man who was not her husband, or a relative, or someone she was engaged to, would be considered a breach of etiquette!

However, would such stringent rules apply to, say, the lower middle classes? I would agree that she wasn't in the upper crust, otherwise she would presumably have been returning home in a carriage.

[Abby Normal]

But we only know that with hindsight John. Duffin wouldn't have been blessed with 20/20 vision. That's why I said "The officer, when he arrives on the scene, cannot possibly know what has happened to her".

Same for Mizen. The body lying on the ground wasn't reported to him as a criminal case or accident so he couldn't possibly have known it would turn out to be a murder.

Explaining why neither of them needed to take particulars.

Exactly. I've never thought Milena did anything wrong but this example just exemplifies it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[David Orsam]

Except, officially at least, this wasn't a criminal case or an accident. Hence, no requirement to take particulars.

But we only know that with hindsight John. Duffin wouldn't have been blessed with 20/20 vision. That's why I said "The officer, when he arrives on the scene, cannot possibly know what has happened to her".

Same for Mizen. The body lying on the ground wasn't reported to him as a criminal case or accident so he couldn't possibly have known it would turn out to be a murder.

Explaining why neither of them needed to take particulars.

[John G]

This is correct.

That is why I started this in the police officials and procedures thread.

Here we have an officer who literally finds two men standing over the body of a woman lying on the pavement in the dark. The woman could be dead or drunk or anything else. The officer, when he arrives on the scene, cannot possibly know what has happened to her or that she has a diseased heart. She might have been murdered or there might have been an accident. At least one of the men, possibly both, leave the crime scene, with one of the men telling a direct lie in order to provide an excuse to leave. The officer, apparently, takes no details of the men.

All seems eerily familiar to me.

Except, officially at least, this wasn't a criminal case or an accident. Hence, no requirement to take particulars.

[David Orsam]

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

No problem!

[David Orsam]

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. To be honest most people (including myself) thought that Mizen was in error and it had been suggested (by myself and others) that he might have lied about what what CL and Paul told him to cover for that error. David showed, however, that as per the Police Code a Police Officer is only obliged to take details if an accident or a crime had been reported. This was the case in Buck's Row as it was in Blackfriars Road.

This is correct.

That is why I started this in the police officials and procedures thread.

Here we have an officer who literally finds two men standing over the body of a woman lying on the pavement in the dark. The woman could be dead or drunk or anything else. The officer, when he arrives on the scene, cannot possibly know what has happened to her or that she has a diseased heart. She might have been murdered or there might have been an accident. At least one of the men, possibly both, leave the crime scene, with one of the men telling a direct lie in order to provide an excuse to leave. The officer, apparently, takes no details of the men.

All seems eerily familiar to me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[curious]

Hi Harry,

For me the mystery is:

1. What was a 'respectable' woman doing out alone at 11pm.
2. Why the cash and valuables?
3. Why the report of bruising on the shoulders?
4. Why the newspaper report saying that one of the men appeared to be searching her clothing?
5. Why did Top Hat Man claim to be her husband?
6. Why did the 2 men disappear (especially as it seems rather callous when THM was supposed to fetch a doctor who may have saved her life?)
7. Why was she carrying a pair of boots?

It's possible that there's an innocent explaination but I think that there's enough there to call it a mystery. David's original reason for posting it though was as a comparison with events in Buck's Row.

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.

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.

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."

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.

5. The 64-million dollar question

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.

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.

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.

curious