Ask Monty……

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Neil,

I know that the subject of watches has been touched on before and so I realise that you won’t be able put figures to your reply but have you any idea/feeling about Constables with watches? I can’t help thinking that very few Constables would have owned watches as they would all have come from the same financially poor class. And if they did have grandad’s gold watch at home would they have been prepared to walk the streets of Whitechapel at night with it? Basically do think it’s fair to say that very, very few would have had a watch on dut?

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

I came across a beat constable admitting to not patrolling his beat as written. This was a constable on the Pinchin st. beat where the Torso was found.

Police-constable William Pennett, 239 H, deposed: - I went on duty at 10 o'clock on Monday night. Nothing attracted my attention that was unusual. I was on a regular beat during the night and morning. I had to go through Pinchin-street about every half-hour. I entered it from Christian-street and Backchurch-lane. I occasionally turned down Frederick-street to where the stables were. I then returned to Pinchin-street. Once or twice I cut it short, and simply went into Backchurch-lane. About 25 minutes past 5, I came from the direction of Christian-street to Pinchin-street. I went across the road from the northern side, in the direction of the railway arch, and had no particular reason for so doing. As I was crossing I saw, in the arch, something that appeared to be a bundle.

PC Pennett did not always patrol Frederick St., and not on the night in question.

That "skip", to me, might well also apply to PC Harvey and his alleged peek into Mitre Square between 1:30 and 1:45. I think when he says he looked in the killer was still there. Now, could he see that far in the dark? Probably not. But I think he just tried to avoid reproach.

[Bridewell]

A charge of Wasting Police Time requires the consent of the DPP. There would need to be a lot of hours wasted or a lot of expense incurred.

[Bridewell]

Hi Monty,

I would welcome your comments about the behaviour of PC Mizen in the Polly Nichols case.

Firstly, he was accused by Paul of continuing his knocking up after he had been told there was a body in Bucks Row. Wouldn't this accusation in a newspaper potentially put him under a bit of pressure for seeming to put private business before police duties?

Secondly, he alleged that Lechmere had told him he was wanted by an officer in Bucks Row. As it transpired, it was shown that he wasn't asked for by another officer, and Lechmere openly stated at the inquest that he alone found the body, and there was no policeman. I would have thought that if the police believed their own officer, then Lechmere would have immediately become a suspect for lying to Mizen. This clearly didn't happen. I feel that Mizen was somewhat incompetent in that he was advised of a body, and yet took no identity details from his two informants, and asked no questions of them. It seems to me that, on discovering that it was a murder, he needed to claim that Lechmere told him a fellow officer wanted him in Bucks Row to cover his own mistakes. Any thoughts based on police procedures?

Many thanks,

It post-dates the murders but in around 1911 the Metropolitan Police clarified their view on knocking up. They were aware that officers were doing it and it was permitted but only on the strict understanding that there was no payment involved and that the service could not be guaranteed as police duties (knocking up wasn't one) took priority in all cases. IF Mizen continued knocking-up after being told that there was a woman either dead or drunk in Bucks Row it was neglect of duty. (Please note I said IF he did that!).

[Bridewell]

Ha ha, it crops up generally, particularly in Mitre Square, but it was a thought provoked by the Berner St beats. Fair points though Wick, PC's won't admit to shirking duty. It was more a matter of 'on the book times' as opposed to actual times.

And Goulston Street also perhaps.....

[Varqm]

The Police Code and manual of criminal law, to give its full title, was first published in 1881 and designed for use not only by the police but also the advocacy and public alike.

Whilst Howard Vincent's name is attributed to the code, it was based upon the work of a number from the judicary and advocacy, who provided Howard Vincent with the legislature upon which this work is based.

The aim was to eradicate confusion and provide guidance to all.

Monty

Howard vincent could not make his own laws so therefore he got them from common law (decided by judges in actual cases)
or legislation (the parliament debated and voted) as both were valid laws.
For various false statements,from the 1835 Statutory Act,1843 Libel act,1861 Larceny act,1871 Prevention of Crimes act,
to various Police Acts, Metropolitan Police Acts,Metropolitan Police Courts Acts, The County Police Acts,The County and Borough Police Act from 1829 to 1887,there is none on police time wasting.All the various false statement offenses were only if there was an oath (perjury),if goods/money were acquired by larceny,if somebody's reputation was damaged (libel),if there was a suspect/trial (preventing the course of justice),if declaration of goods were false,etc.,mostly related to courts and commerce/goods.

Common law,that I know, covered only perjury under oath .

For one,with police time wasting as related to Packer,Schwartz,Hutchinson for ex.,the false statement did not cover an actual person-just a description,so libel.larceny, preventing the course of justice could not be applied.
After the 1967 law on police time wasting the people who went to police stations and declared themselves the Ripper were also chargeable.

The closest thing was Hutchinson since he got paid - False Pretences under section 88,89,101 in Larceny Act 1861.
But it was not larceny, for one there was no gurarantee of a payment,it was up to the police or press to decide to pay him.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Monty,

I would welcome your comments about the behaviour of PC Mizen in the Polly Nichols case.

Firstly, he was accused by Paul of continuing his knocking up after he had been told there was a body in Bucks Row. Wouldn't this accusation in a newspaper potentially put him under a bit of pressure for seeming to put private business before police duties?

Secondly, he alleged that Lechmere had told him he was wanted by an officer in Bucks Row. As it transpired, it was shown that he wasn't asked for by another officer, and Lechmere openly stated at the inquest that he alone found the body, and there was no policeman. I would have thought that if the police believed their own officer, then Lechmere would have immediately become a suspect for lying to Mizen. This clearly didn't happen. I feel that Mizen was somewhat incompetent in that he was advised of a body, and yet took no identity details from his two informants, and asked no questions of them. It seems to me that, on discovering that it was a murder, he needed to claim that Lechmere told him a fellow officer wanted him in Bucks Row to cover his own mistakes. Any thoughts based on police procedures?

Many thanks,

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I came across a beat constable admitting to not patrolling his beat as written. This was a constable on the Pinchin st. beat where the Torso was found.

Police-constable William Pennett, 239 H, deposed: - I went on duty at 10 o'clock on Monday night. Nothing attracted my attention that was unusual. I was on a regular beat during the night and morning. I had to go through Pinchin-street about every half-hour. I entered it from Christian-street and Backchurch-lane. I occasionally turned down Frederick-street to where the stables were. I then returned to Pinchin-street. Once or twice I cut it short, and simply went into Backchurch-lane. About 25 minutes past 5, I came from the direction of Christian-street to Pinchin-street. I went across the road from the northern side, in the direction of the railway arch, and had no particular reason for so doing. As I was crossing I saw, in the arch, something that appeared to be a bundle.

PC Pennett did not always patrol Frederick St., and not on the night in question.

Cheers Wick,

Worth taking into consideration when speculating that the killer might know the beats. And this is what's on record, so it seems to have been an acceptable practice. It also throws out guaranteed timings, when arguing that a particular PC should be in a particular place.

[Wickerman]

...

Police beats. Specified streets and alleyways, at specified times. From the Ripperological view, we measure the route and work with the 2.5mph pace, then come up with a general time to cover said beat ( Jeff surely does, he loves that stuff). But, a dead end court, many of which are narrow, don't require a full pavement to pavement via two 90 degree turns to cover, they could be scanned from halfway down with a wave of the lamp, if that. Factor in familiarity breeds contempt, and beat times could be much shorter or less thorough.

Are there many, or any, cases of patrolling police missing things or being negligent due to slap dash walking the beat?

I came across a beat constable admitting to not patrolling his beat as written. This was a constable on the Pinchin st. beat where the Torso was found.

Police-constable William Pennett, 239 H, deposed: - I went on duty at 10 o'clock on Monday night. Nothing attracted my attention that was unusual. I was on a regular beat during the night and morning. I had to go through Pinchin-street about every half-hour. I entered it from Christian-street and Backchurch-lane. I occasionally turned down Frederick-street to where the stables were. I then returned to Pinchin-street. Once or twice I cut it short, and simply went into Backchurch-lane. About 25 minutes past 5, I came from the direction of Christian-street to Pinchin-street. I went across the road from the northern side, in the direction of the railway arch, and had no particular reason for so doing. As I was crossing I saw, in the arch, something that appeared to be a bundle.

PC Pennett did not always patrol Frederick St., and not on the night in question.

[Varqm]

I have to look this further. As far As I know not, see if it covered police time wasting, which is a distinct offense, another form of lying, especially if voluntary.
Newspaper reports of people going to the police station declaring themselves the ripper for ex., were not charged ,just released .

[Monty]

The Police Code and manual of criminal law, to give its full title, was first published in 1881 and designed for use not only by the police but also the advocacy and public alike.

Whilst Howard Vincent's name is attributed to the code, it was based upon the work of a number from the judicary and advocacy, who provided Howard Vincent with the legislature upon which this work is based.

The aim was to eradicate confusion and provide guidance to all.

Monty

[Varqm]

I have to look further. To add...

There were forms of lying.

In actual situations. Simple ex.
1) The policeman investigating an incident asks a man, "does that cartoon contain this product" but actually it does not.
-Did you just move those things there, no I did not, but he actually did.
2) Complete fabrication. No situation/incident occured.
Oh yeah I saw the victim with this man and so on and so forth but actually nothing happened. This statement made with no actual suspect on trial or being investigated.

The 2 above were different lies.The 1st one chargeable, at least in 1888,the 2nd one not.

The 1967 Criminal act was specific, by itself the 2nd above was an offense (wasting police time),chargeable,. Whether there was a suspect or not ,in trial or not.

---The 2nd one, complete fabrication, was and could be "perverting the course of justice" if there is a case against somebody, or a suspect is in trial.If a witness said ,"Oh yeah he was with me at this time and location during the time of the crime" but actually it did not occur. Then this was helping a/the suspect.

[Wickerman]

This code took effect in 1889 right? And was it a code for the policeman to follow?
Or was it an official law for anyone to follow and an offense if violated. It seems to me only through legislation could laws be
voted on and enacted like the Perjury laws and the various Criminal Acts.I can't find the corresponding legislation for this.

Those questions need to be addressed by Neil, although when the book came out I remember asking Neil why it wasn't called the 1888 Police Code, he replied that it actually was in effect in 1888.

[Varqm]

Also aside from dealing only with commerce/business/goods/courts, my understanding of the various Acts is lying/perjury was charged if the witness made a statement under oath. Policemen,1888, at that time did not have authority to administer such oath. The 1911 though had "False statutory declarations and other false statements without oath" so I thought this was the law that punished false statements to the police. But it was in 1967 that it was finally clear./specific.

I could not find an 1895 perjury act/bill enacted. Discussed but it was not passed.

[Varqm]

False Pretences.
1. Every one commits a misdemeanor - (two clauses (a, or b,) where a person attempts to obtain a thing of value by misrepresentation.)

2. A false pretence is a false representation, made either by words, writing, or conduct, that some fact exists or existed, and notwithstanding that a person of common prudence might easily have detected its falsehood by inquiry, and although the existence of the alleged fact was, in itself, impossible.
Sir Howard Vincent's Police Code 1889, pp 83/84. Bell & Wood, 2015.

Which appears to suggest it is a misdemeanor for someone to make a statement of fact to police, which is untrue, regardless that it may be easy to figure out, or even that it is in reality an impossibility.

This code took effect in 1889 right? And was it a code for the policeman to follow?
Or was it an official law for anyone to follow and an offense if violated. It seems to me only through legislation could laws be
voted on and enacted like the Perjury laws and the various Criminal Acts.I can't find the corresponding legislation for this.