Ask Monty……

[Monty]

OK, here's a question Neil, but without perhaps a specific reference to say, a police disciplinary or something, might be totally unanswerable.

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?

As Wick suggests, it would be naive of us to assume that such parts of beats were correctly patrolled. I have spoken with beat officers from the force I work for (Leics Police) who undertook patrols in the 1960s and they freely admit that sometimes they have been slack in their duties.

However there may be a valid reason for that, such as dealing with an incident that meant time had to be made up. This makes such laxity understandable and I see no reason why a Bobby wouldn’t admit to such an incident in his report.

That said, both Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow (two former experienced Policemen) recognise that sometimes beats were not throughly patrolled as they should due to a fly smoke or sneaky brew with a watchman.

It’s a possibility that cannot be discounted I admit.

Monty

[Varqm]

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?

[JeffHamm]

OK, here's a question Neil, but without perhaps a specific reference to say, a police disciplinary or something, might be totally unanswerable.

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?

Hi Al Bundy's Eyes,

I see Wickerman and Monty have responded, and I just want to indicate I agree with their comments. While I admit I do enjoy working with the beats and stated times, and perhaps don't explicitly state this enough, one of the things I'm doing with those analyses are checking to see if there is evidence to indicate that the above sort of "shirking" took place. If a PC states they were in location A at Time X, and then in location B at Time Y, and those positions and times line up well with his expected duties of patrol, then we have no evidence to suggest that they are fudging things. If they don't line up, then we have a problem that requires some sort of reconciliation, either their stated times are off (something to consider if they do not have access to a clock and are estimating their times) or their patrol was not at regulation speed, or they skipped some section, etc. If we see there is evidence for something to be off, I then try and see what adjustments "from book" resolve the contradiction. So far, though, the only PC who appears to be a bit off book is PC Harvey at Mitre Square as he appears to have patrolled at a speed a bit slower than regulation (I've tried other ideas, like him ducking undercover to avoid the rain, but those become harder to reconcile with other aspects of his testimony without making other changes to compensate in order to force it to work, which indicates one is on the wrong track).

But again, and to be clear, what I'm working with are simulations that start with taking their testimony at face value, and just because things are consistent with the PC doing things "by the book" doesn't prove they did. It just means we do not have any indication they didn't. As such, the default conclusion is that the PC did as he testified. I like to examine these things because without putting their testimony to some kind of test, we are always left with both options to play with (i.e. they did it as they said, or they didn't ... insert violation of choice here). What I try and do is see whether or not both options are equally playable, if you get my drift. Of course, to do that, I need to be pretty confident the beat map is sufficiently accurate, and that can be tricky. In one of the threads on Nichol's murder we had a number of options presented for PC Neil's beat there. In the end, the critical information worked out sufficiently similar that the conclusion was tolerant of that source of errors, and showed how Cross/Lechmere and Paul could find the body, and move on to then find PC Mizen, while not bumping into or being spotted by PC Neil.

In short, the analysis I present, is not proof they had to have done things by the book, it is a test of whether or not their testimony, as give, is consistent with them doing things by the book. If they pass that test, then we cannot say there is evidence that their testimony is erroneous, which then puts arguments based upon erroneous testimony on the back foot. If they fail that test, then it points to something being off. As I say, so far, there haven't been any indications that the PC's routinely deviated from their expected duties. Even PC Harvey's slower than regulation patrol speed isn't incredibly slow and could reflect something idiosyncratic about his other required duties on that beat (i.e. more doors than the typical beat to check, etc).

- Jeff

[GUT]

Good to see Monty back, if he isn’t around I encourage you to grab his book.

[Monty]

Hi Al Bundy's Eyes,

I see Wickerman and Monty have responded, and I just want to indicate I agree with their comments. While I admit I do enjoy working with the beats and stated times, and perhaps don't explicitly state this enough, one of the things I'm doing with those analyses are checking to see if there is evidence to indicate that the above sort of "shirking" took place. If a PC states they were in location A at Time X, and then in location B at Time Y, and those positions and times line up well with his expected duties of patrol, then we have no evidence to suggest that they are fudging things. If they don't line up, then we have a problem that requires some sort of reconciliation, either their stated times are off (something to consider if they do not have access to a clock and are estimating their times) or their patrol was not at regulation speed, or they skipped some section, etc. If we see there is evidence for something to be off, I then try and see what adjustments "from book" resolve the contradiction. So far, though, the only PC who appears to be a bit off book is PC Harvey at Mitre Square as he appears to have patrolled at a speed a bit slower than regulation (I've tried other ideas, like him ducking undercover to avoid the rain, but those become harder to reconcile with other aspects of his testimony without making other changes to compensate in order to force it to work, which indicates one is on the wrong track).

But again, and to be clear, what I'm working with are simulations that start with taking their testimony at face value, and just because things are consistent with the PC doing things "by the book" doesn't prove they did. It just means we do not have any indication they didn't. As such, the default conclusion is that the PC did as he testified. I like to examine these things because without putting their testimony to some kind of test, we are always left with both options to play with (i.e. they did it as they said, or they didn't ... insert violation of choice here). What I try and do is see whether or not both options are equally playable, if you get my drift. Of course, to do that, I need to be pretty confident the beat map is sufficiently accurate, and that can be tricky. In one of the threads on Nichol's murder we had a number of options presented for PC Neil's beat there. In the end, the critical information worked out sufficiently similar that the conclusion was tolerant of that source of errors, and showed how Cross/Lechmere and Paul could find the body, and move on to then find PC Mizen, while not bumping into or being spotted by PC Neil.

In short, the analysis I present, is not proof they had to have done things by the book, it is a test of whether or not their testimony, as give, is consistent with them doing things by the book. If they pass that test, then we cannot say there is evidence that their testimony is erroneous, which then puts arguments based upon erroneous testimony on the back foot. If they fail that test, then it points to something being off. As I say, so far, there haven't been any indications that the PC's routinely deviated from their expected duties. Even PC Harvey's slower than regulation patrol speed isn't incredibly slow and could reflect something idiosyncratic about his other required duties on that beat (i.e. more doors than the typical beat to check, etc).

- Jeff

A simplistic view is that day beats are timed to be completed once every 30mins. Night patrols are halved and therefore take 15 mins to complete (PC Neil has always been the discrepancy however I place that down to a reporter’s misunderstanding).

Relief goes out at around 9:45pm and we’re expected to be up and running by 10pm.

The timings make sense re Watkins and Harvey in relation to the positions they were seen (Morris in both cases).

All said and done, the PCs gave evidence as to those times so we must take them as true unless proven otherwise. That said, we must also be mindful that policemen are humans with human frailties.

Monty

[Monty]

Good to see Monty back, if he isn’t around I encourage you to grab his book.

Too kind, as ever.

Thank you

Monty

[Monty]

Yes Neil,

But either a "known as" or an entirely new made-up name.

Apologies for missing this Scott.

If a name hasn’t been verified but a name has been given (usually by a witness or informant) then the prefix “know as…” would be used.

If no name is given then they would be referred to as “a person matching the description given by” or “unnamed suspect” with enquiries as to their identification being made.

Hope this helps.

Monty

[JeffHamm]

A simplistic view is that day beats are timed to be completed once every 30mins. Night patrols are halved and therefore take 15 mins to complete (PC Neil has always been the discrepancy however I place that down to a reporter’s misunderstanding).

Relief goes out at around 9:45pm and we’re expected to be up and running by 10pm.

The timings make sense re Watkins and Harvey in relation to the positions they were seen (Morris in both cases).

All said and done, the PCs gave evidence as to those times so we must take them as true unless proven otherwise. That said, we must also be mindful that policemen are humans with human frailties.

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

[Scott Nelson]

Hey Scott,

Hope you are well chap.

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.

[GBinOz]

Hi Neil,

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

Cheers, George

[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.

[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.

[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.:

[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]

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.