Ask Monty……

[Monty]

Thanks Neil,

How important was it for the beat cop to know the time? How would Smith, Lamb and the Fixed-point PC at Grove St kept track of the time? I've just ordered your book but it won't arrive down under until mid-September - looking forward to reading it.

Cheers, George

Thanks George.

Hope you find it of use, when it eventually arrives.

Very important. Some had their own pocket watches, and some used fixed clocks located commonly at churches but also factories, shops and monuments had such pieces.

Also the Section Sergeant would be conducting his patrols to ensure his men are where they should be, and if they needed assistance.

Monty

[MrBarnett]

Hi Monty,

Were you ever able to unearth Thomas Cross’s Met Police records?

And a more general question, albeit relevant to Cross, what was the minimum age requirement for joining the Met in the 1850s?

Gary

[Joshua Rogan]

I read ya. However, 15 mins night and 30 mins day as the standard for many years, prior to the murders. 1/3 strength day, 2/3 strength day. This is why the 30 min stands out for me.

One possibility is that Smith and Neil were covering an adjoining beat, possibly due short of staff. However a reserve commonly would fill that slot.

Maybe it’s just how H div worked it sometimes. As I say, seems odd to me.

Hi Monty, and Jeff
The Echo 21 Sept '88 claims to have obtained exact beat information for the constables patrolling from Bethnal Green (J division) on the night of the Buck's Row murder, and says that four of the five PCs (including Neil) were actually covering two beats each. This tallies with both the theoretical 15 minute single beat and the 30 minute actual double beat times.
It also claims that the double beat circumference was over a mile (not counting interior streets), is that comparable with your estimations of Smith's Berner Street patrol Jeff? If so, it may indicate that H division PCs (or one, at least) were also working double beats even as late as October.

Watkins and Harvey were on the City force, of course. Although this had much less manpower than the Met force, it had vastly less area to patrol, so had more "bobbies per beat" available. Thus it was possible for City beats to be patrolled in 15 minutes.


"Echo
London, U.K.
21 September 1888

EAST END MURDERS
THE POLICEMEN'S NIGHT BEATS
THE PRESENT PRECAUTIONS

A Correspondent has obtained exact details of those police beats covering the area within which the Buck's row murder was committed. From this it will be seen that the murderer had no doubt a considerable time in which he was quite sure of being undisturbed by a police constable, assuming he knew the beats. It seems that, notwithstanding the frequent repetition of murders round Whitechapel, under circumstances leading to the conclusion that they were the work of one man, not one single extra police officer was put upon the ground until after the commission of the fourth and last murder. Then the streets were filled night and by by police in and out of uniform.

During the month of August, and up to the 8th instant, when Annie Chapman was killed, the following beats were covered by the men of the J Division quartered at Bethnal green, these forming what is known as the "Second Section night duty." The first police constable would commence his two beats at Wilmot street, three Colt land, Cheshire street, Mape street, Bethnal green road, to Wilmot street, and the interior, this consisting of a few streets, courts, passages, &c. The second constable would cover Three Colt lane, Collingwood street, Darling row, Dog row, Whitechapel road, Brady street, to Three Colt lane, and the interior, this consisting of about twenty streets, courts, passages, &c; the third constable would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's row, Thomas street, Queen Anne street, and Buck's row, to Brady street, and all the interior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage, &c. The fourth constable would commence at Baker's row, go through Nottingham street, White street, Bethnal Green road, Mape street, London street, to Baker's row, and all the interior, consisting of about thirty streets, courts, passages, &c. The fifth and last man of the section would cover Whitechapel road alone, this making a total of nine beats for the five constables. The third beat was the one within the limit of which Mrs. Nicholl (sic) was murdered. The exterior of the beats are at least a mile in extent, and to this distance must be added the interiors."

[GBinOz]

Hey George.

I honestly cant recall. It’s been a while. I’ve been without a PC for over a year and so not been able to check my records in that time.

Let me look, and if I find something, I’ll let you know.

Monty

Thanks Neil,

How important was it for the beat cop to know the time? How would Smith, Lamb and the Fixed-point PC at Grove St kept track of the time? I've just ordered your book but it won't arrive down under until mid-September - looking forward to reading it.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Thanks.Whats the exact wording of the section on false pretence?

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.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks Jeff, good to be back. Hope you and yours are well.

I read ya. However, 15 mins night and 30 mins day as the standard for many years, prior to the murders. 1/3 strength day, 2/3 strength day. This is why the 30 min stands out for me.

One possibility is that Smith and Neil were covering an adjoining beat, possibly due short of staff. However a reserve commonly would fill that slot.

Maybe it’s just how H div worked it sometimes. As I say, seems odd to me.

Monty

Hi Monty,

All good here. Yah, they stand out from the expected majority of beats, but I'm pretty sure there is some chatter in the communications between, maybe Munro? and HO, where it's mentioned there wasn't enough manpower to meet those time goals for all beats. With two of the murders involving such a location, that could simply reflect areas chosen by prostitutes to ply trade, as they would gravitate to areas with longer periods where they wouldn't be disturbed. I recognize there are arguments that Stride may not have been engaged in prostitution, but it then becomes unclear what she was doing that night. Being out on a date is often offered, but if all the sightings of her are correct, she seems to have been out on a date with different men (though those could be erroneous recollections of the man she was with I suppose). Regardless, given the reduced coverage on a "double" let's call them, it follows that those might be at increased risk for trouble, hence we come across them at a greater than chance rate. Meaning, they may be uncommon on the whole, but have a greater chance to appear in connection to the crimes due to that reduced police presence because they're locations with a greater chance of opportunity for crime?

Again, given the description of the beats in question results in a length that fits the times the PC's give as their patrol times, I think we have to accept those were some of the non-standard beats. One thing to note, PC Neil's beat does have Buck's Row patrolled at each end by others, making it more difficult to slip in and out of that area, and Whitechapel would have had a heavy PC presence, and also public foot traffic. Perhaps those combined was viewed as making it ok to have that particular beat less intense. I presume Commercial had a fairly heavy PC presence and also would be generally busy with citizens too, and if the beats around that area were also more or less covering the edges well, again, it might have been decided that could be a less intensely patrolled area as well, as if the activity around it provided some sort of natural protection against crime? If they didn't have the staff/funding to have every beat 15 minutes, some sort of compromise would have to be made in places, which is what I think we're seeing here. Obviously, my speculations on how those decisions might have been made are just that, and even if the guesses I offer are clearly wrong it wouldn't change the underlying idea that something probably guided the decision making that ended up with those two double beats being decided. It's also possible that where the "doubles" were changed every so often, so that they weren't predictable.

- Jeff

[Monty]

Hi Neil,

Would you have access to any information, additional to the inquest, on the layout of Smith's Berner St beat?

Cheers, George

Hey George.

I honestly cant recall. It’s been a while. I’ve been without a PC for over a year and so not been able to check my records in that time.

Let me look, and if I find something, I’ll let you know.

Monty

[Monty]

Would be interesting to know the answer.

I don't think there's any doubt it would be a misdemeanour. I suppose you read C of the Perjury Act 1911 (the 1895 had similar provisions) as not applicable, because a person might not be required to tell the police something? Once they gave a witness statement, that would fall under A, at least.

Finding the exact provision might prove challenging, though. From A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors, 1877:

The 1895 Perjury Act mentions that the combined Act would repeal 150 different sections of laws and statutes, so tracking all of those down and checking is quite the task!

Yep.


Monty

[Monty]

Thanks for the response, Neil.

Unfortunately senility has set in pretty badly. Revenge for my past years of obnoxious behavior on this site. Hope you're keeping well.

I am fella. Hope you are.

Keep raging Scott…keep raging.

Monty

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

Yes, that was my understanding in terms of the ideal, that night beats were to be around 15 minutes. The requests for funding, and bringing in extra officers to do patrols was to try and meet this objective. However, I seem to recall there are communications between the police and HO where it is mentioned that they couldn't get every beat to this 15 min cycle target (PC Neil, for example; and PC Smith around Berner's street mentions that his beat took 25-30 minutes as well). Given PC Neil's described beat, to cover that distance at patrol regulation speed, it would take him about 30 minutes, so I don't think it's a reporter's misunderstanding, rather, I suspect his was just one of the longer ones. PC Smith's, being south of Whitechappel, could have been left as one of the longer ones if they were concentrating on improving the coverage north of Whitechappel (which in turn could point to why JtR ends up there, if, of course, Stride was murdered by JtR).

Anyway, I agree, Police are human too, and walking a circuit every 15-30 minutes for hours is not exactly stimulating. Most of the time nothing happens, and it is hardly surprising if they occasionally had a chat with a watchman, etc. It's also a way to foster relations with other "eyes and ears on the street". But testing the validity of a statement and finding it passes that test is better than just accepting it at face value. And, as I say, so far I've not seen any widespread dereliction of duty, something that has at times been leveled at the police of the day. I don't think that's a valid generalization.

Good to see you back. Hope you have time to pull up a chair and stay awhile.

- Jeff

Thanks Jeff, good to be back. Hope you and yours are well.

I read ya. However, 15 mins night and 30 mins day as the standard for many years, prior to the murders. 1/3 strength day, 2/3 strength day. This is why the 30 min stands out for me.

One possibility is that Smith and Neil were covering an adjoining beat, possibly due short of staff. However a reserve commonly would fill that slot.

Maybe it’s just how H div worked it sometimes. As I say, seems odd to me.

Monty

[Varqm]

Would be interesting to know the answer.

I don't think there's any doubt it would be a misdemeanour. I suppose you read C of the Perjury Act 1911 (the 1895 had similar provisions) as not applicable, because a person might not be required to tell the police something? Once they gave a witness statement, that would fall under A, at least.

Finding the exact provision might prove challenging, though. From A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors, 1877:

The 1895 Perjury Act mentions that the combined Act would repeal 150 different sections of laws and statutes, so tracking all of those down and checking is quite the task!

But as In the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 and 1911 perjury act, these provisions relate to either commerce/business, courts or ongoing cases, statement to court-related/authorized personnel, even ranking military officers. The police had no respect, so to speak. I doubt but I'll look to it further.
The 1967 section on wasting police time was a newly created offense.

Witnesses in 1888 had no worries making statements to the police, there was no offense. It was a different environment .Lax.
The Packers, Schwartzs, Hutchinsons and those alluded to by Supt. Forster (The Star, 2 October 1888) were free to speak anything.

[Kattrup]

Thanks.Whats the exact wording of the section on false pretence?

Lying to the police was not covered by any laws in 1888, other than possibly the above you mention.Even the 1911 perjury act-which I initially believed covered it, which has a section about false statements without oath. Perverting the course of justice could also not be used as there was no case against anybody yet.

1911 perjury act

::False statutory declarations and other false statements without oath


If any person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, and the statement is made—

(a)in a statutory declaration ; or

(b)in an abstract, account, balance sheet, book, certificate, declaration, entry, estimate, inventory, notice, report, return, or other document which he is authorised or required to make, attest, or verify, by any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force; or

(c)in any oral declaration or oral answer which he is required to make by, under, or in pursuance of any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force,

he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.::


But is covered in the 1967 criminal act.

:Where a person causes any wasteful employment of the police by knowingly making to any person a false report tending to show that an offence has been committed, or to give rise to apprehension for the safety of any persons or property, or tending to show that he has information material to any police inquiry, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than six months or to a fine of not more than two hundred pounds or to both.:

Would be interesting to know the answer.

I don't think there's any doubt it would be a misdemeanour. I suppose you read C of the Perjury Act 1911 (the 1895 had similar provisions) as not applicable, because a person might not be required to tell the police something? Once they gave a witness statement, that would fall under A, at least.

Finding the exact provision might prove challenging, though. From A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors, 1877:

The 1895 Perjury Act mentions that the combined Act would repeal 150 different sections of laws and statutes, so tracking all of those down and checking is quite the task!

[Varqm]

I don't have the Police Acts, Neil may be able to provide some input.
I do have the Police Code (by Neil & Adam).


The Police Code could classify this as False Pretence, which depending on the intent, could bring a charge of misdemeanor.
I don't think Perjury would apply as that is an offense after taking an Oath, or Affirmation and statements to police are not 'sworn-to'.
Much may depend on what the false statement consisted of, the intent, and to what degree it may have mislead the investigation.

Thanks.Whats the exact wording of the section on false pretence?

Lying to the police was not covered by any laws in 1888, other than possibly the above you mention.Even the 1911 perjury act-which I initially believed covered it, which has a section about false statements without oath. Perverting the course of justice could also not be used as there was no case against anybody yet.

1911 perjury act

::False statutory declarations and other false statements without oath


If any person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, and the statement is made—

(a)in a statutory declaration ; or

(b)in an abstract, account, balance sheet, book, certificate, declaration, entry, estimate, inventory, notice, report, return, or other document which he is authorised or required to make, attest, or verify, by any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force; or

(c)in any oral declaration or oral answer which he is required to make by, under, or in pursuance of any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force,

he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.::


But is covered in the 1967 criminal act.

:Where a person causes any wasteful employment of the police by knowingly making to any person a false report tending to show that an offence has been committed, or to give rise to apprehension for the safety of any persons or property, or tending to show that he has information material to any police inquiry, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than six months or to a fine of not more than two hundred pounds or to both.:

[harry]

I cannot speak for the police,but under other acts,giving false information,whether orally or in written form,would be an offence only if it actually caused an officer to act in a manner other than he would have done.

[Wickerman]

My understanding is it is no, but maybe somewhere in any police codes/acts...

In 1888 ,outside of the courts, if a witness makes false statements to the police would he be charged with any offense?

I don't have the Police Acts, Neil may be able to provide some input.
I do have the Police Code (by Neil & Adam).


The Police Code could classify this as False Pretence, which depending on the intent, could bring a charge of misdemeanor.
I don't think Perjury would apply as that is an offense after taking an Oath, or Affirmation and statements to police are not 'sworn-to'.
Much may depend on what the false statement consisted of, the intent, and to what degree it may have mislead the investigation.