The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[David Orsam]

How could there be any circumstances when an officer would know that a crime had occurred? For instance, even in a case where a victim is found with their throat cut, it could feasibly be a case of suicide or self defence. Based upon such an interpretation, The Code would be rendered meaningless. Why would the police devize a meaningless Code of Conduct?

You've obviously forgotten that suicide was a criminal offence in 1888 but, that aside, I said a long time ago that a police officer can be expected to know what a criminal case is when he sees one or has one reported to him.

We really don't need get involved in a philosophical conversation about what does it mean to "know" something but I merely note that the Police Code itself uses this wording under the heading of Apprehension where it says:

"Every individual, who either sees a felony committed or knows one has actually been committed, may arrest the offender...."

The same type of knowledge no doubt applies to a police officer whether assessing when a crime has occurred.

[David Orsam]

If a witness refused to give particulars they could be presumably arrested for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.

There is no such presumption, John, or anything like it and this comment suggests a certain amount of desperation on your part.

Have you read the Police Code under the heading of Obstruction of Justice and Police? Have you considered the wording of section 38 the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861?

Had you done so, you would have seen that there is no way that Mizen could have arrested the carmen for obstructing him in the execution of his duty.

[Pierre]

As we've established, the code refers to "necessary" particulars. So failure to take particulars on its own is not a breach of the police code.

And now you will get a discussion about what was "necessary".

[David Orsam]

The Code states that particulars should be taken in a criminal case. PC Mizen failed to take down Cross' particulars, or for that matter anyone's particulars, in a criminal case. Based on a strict interpretation, why was that not a breach of The Code?

As we've established, the code refers to "necessary" particulars. So failure to take particulars on its own is not a breach of the police code.

[David Orsam]

For instance, if you're saying that every time a police officer interviews a witness that amounts merely to a "conversation", then there are no circumstances when a police officer would be required to take down particulars. How on earth does that make any sense?

I have to pick up on this. In no conceivable meaning of the word "interview" could Mizen be said to have interviewed Cross and Paul that night. All that happened is that they spoke to him to report an incident.

As for the rest of it, there's no point discussing whether my interpretation makes sense because I'm saying that it makes as much sense as your interpretation.

[David Orsam]

Your interpretation of The Code makes no sense

No, exactly! That's the whole point. My interpretation is comparable to yours, namely a strictly literal interpretation of the police code which actually makes no sense. That's why it would not have applied to Mizen.

[David Orsam]

But as you point out, the relevant section falls under "misconduct of police", so why do you say this couldn't be a misconduct issue?

But I didn't say that John. In fact, I said the opposite, i.e. "let's assume that the heading of the section does mean that it could lead to a charge of misconduct."

And if it was a misconduct issue, why do you say it couldn't amount to misconduct in public office?

Are you imagining things John? I didn't even address the issue of whether it could have amounted to misconduct in a public office.

And police officers could actually be prosecuted for misconduct in public office: see R v Wyatt (1703).

I have no idea why you are referring to R. v. Wyat (note spelling) when section 14 of the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839 would have been applicable to Mizen and the Police Code expressly refers to a Metropolitan Police officer being charged before a magistrate for neglect or violation of duty under the Police Acts.

[David Orsam]

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

She was allegedly seen. Elizabeth Cass denied the allegation. And a subsequent witness supported her version of events.

Yes, that is why I said in #190: "Just to be clear: that was the allegation, I don't say it was necessarily true."

I'm not arguing one way or the other about whether allegation was true, I'm saying it wasn't enough simply to have been an unaccompanied female walking along the street to be arrested. It was the fact that the constable was believed to have done this which caused such an outcry. But 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.

[David Orsam]

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

So the charge was "pestering" not solicitation and prostitution?

I didn't say that.

She was arrested for the pestering. There was no actual evidence of soliciting, which was inferred. What you should have said was that being an accompanied female in broad daylight pestering men was enough for to be arrested for prostitution.

[David Orsam]

And yet, it is claimed, that is exactly what he he did. Which is the point I was making.

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?

[David Orsam]

>>But Duffin didn't know the woman's name.<<

I don't believe I ever claimed he did.

You said, "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 and thus didn't know the man's name so he didn't have any details at all.

[David Orsam]

Yes really.

Mizen encountered a situation that required trust on his part, yet we have no record of him taking the kind of steps i have already described to reassure his trust enough to make a reasoned decision.

Duffin had visual stimulation to make his decisions, as I keep writing, different situations.

You think he should have carried out a full investigation of the situation before proceeding to Bucks Row? Okay.

Of course, he wouldn't have been criticised for any delay, both in interrupting his knocking up to carry out the investigation and in not going directly to Bucks Row.

[David Orsam]

I don't believe Xmere lied and I don't believe the police believed Xmere lied.

With regards to "top hat" we have no information to suggest that he was telling the truth.

So, no similarity, for me, there.

I don't know what "we have no information to suggest that "Top Hat" man was telling the truth" actually means, but she was a widow, so he can't possibly have been her husband, so he lied.

I can understand that you might not think that Mizen did, in fact, lie but that of course is to miss the point.

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?

[David Orsam]

Because a "husband" should be with his wife, where he could be of practical use by offering comfort if she regained consciousness and by answering necessary questions.

Whereas, anybody could fetch medical help. Duffin, of course, should have known exactly where he nearest medical help was.

None of those issues would be of concern to a police officer. If the husband wanted to get medical help for his wife, a police officer had no right or grounds to stop him doing so.

[David Orsam]

If I am, then I don't know I am, because that is definitely not what my brain is telling me.

I see two different scenarios that you appear to be trying to draw tenuous links to.

They are different scenarios with some obvious similar features which you are pretending not to be able to see.