Leaving one's beat

[The Station Cat]

Found this which I thought might be of interest.....

DONALD WATERS (Police Inspector, J). On June 26th, a little after 10 p.m., I heard a whistle in Whitechapel Road—I saw the prisoner running, followed by a number of persons—I gave chase—after running about 100 yards in Ivy Lane, Friday Street, Bath Street, I overtook him in Bath Passage—we struggled—a constable came to my assistance—he continued to struggle, and kicked me in the leg, but did not hurt me much—other roughs got round—he was conveyed to Bethnal Green Police-station by two constables—

Working on the assumption, that Bath Street is just off Brady Street (Beat 2 on the below map). Two Constables come to the Insp's assistance. So one of them must have left their beat, whether that was from (Beat 1 or Beat 5)?

Unless of course one of them was on "Fixed Point" outside Whitechapel Railway Station (not sure whether that was still being manned at 10PM, but either way I further believe that things had to be very direr for a Constable to leave "Fixed Point", so I think it's more likely that one of these Bobbies left his beat?

[Bridewell]

John,
This is from a Judge of that period. "Complete,in the sense of being entirely exhaustive, the manual cannot and does not pretend to be"
And
The duties of the police,are for the most part,defined by statute.

The Police Code seems to have been the earlier version of what would now be termed "Standing Orders", which I was always told were for the instruction of fools and the guidance of the wise.

[harry]

John,
This is from a Judge of that period. "Complete,in the sense of being entirely exhaustive, the manual cannot and does not pretend to be"
And
The duties of the police,are for the most part,defined by statute.

[David Orsam]

Now, I don't say that he was definitely guilty of misconduct, or even probably guilty. But the salient issue, as I see it, is whether PC Mizen considered that there was a real risk that he could be subject to a misconduct inquiry. If so, he had a motive to lie.

The only motive to lie would be if he had been told of a criminal case or an accident.

He wasn't told of either of these things, on any view of the evidence, therefore no motive to lie.

And further there wasn't a single suggestion in 1888 that he could be in any form of trouble for not taking the carmens' particulars. He wasn't even asked at the inquest. It's a wholly modern criticism.

[David Orsam]

Of course, the intention may not have been to impose strict liability.

Well it can't have done in a legal sense.

It's not possible for the Code to have meant that an officer would be found guilty of misconduct for not taking details in a situation where he didn't know it was a criminal case.

How is that a difficult concept to understand?

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

If the intention of The Code was to impose strict liability in these circumstances then he definitely was guilty of misconduct, as this was definitely a criminal case and he failed to take particulars. This is so clear cut that it's nor even a matter for debate (of course, this doesn't mean The Code, in this respect, was strictly applied, as reasonable discretion may have been exercised.)

Thus, strict liability doesn't require the element of fault. In Regina v Prince (1875)...

Well it's perfectly obvious where you are going wrong. You are applying a legal definition of "strict liability" to the Police Code? Why? The Police Code had no legal force? It was a code governing police behaviour.

As I keep saying but you continually ignore, the Police Code could not possibly have anticipated officers having special powers of (psychic) understanding. Unless they were told or could see that it was a criminal case the Police Code could not possibly apply.

Although you say "this was definitely a criminal case", Mizen could not have known it when the carmen approached him so he obviously wasn't required to take particulars.

It really is so simple John and you are overthinking and overcomplicating it.

[John G]

This simply isn't true John. He wasn't "definitely guilty of misconduct" at all.

Police Officers could only act on the basis of their knowledge. So the Code cannot possibly have expected officers to act on the basis of hindsight (or psychic ability).

Frankly, if we took your logic then every single officer of the Metropolitan Police was "definitely guilty of misconduct" that night. None of them took the particulars of Cross and Paul. Yet there was "a criminal case" in existence.

But you will say, well of course it can't mean every other police officer, that's ridiculous, none of them spoke to Cross or Paul. But where does it say in the Code that the officer has to speak to or be spoken to by someone? All it says is that an officer is guilty of misconduct in: "Neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or a case of accident".

So unless this is nonsense it must imply that the officer is actually present at the time even though it is not expressly stated in the Code.

It must also imply that there are individuals whose details he can actually take. I mean, what if there was no-one around and Mizen found a murdered woman lying on the ground? It's a criminal case. But whose names and addresses can he take? There aren't any. So on your view of strict liability he is guilty of misconduct for not taking any names!!!

What is perfectly clear, John, is that the officer MUST have knowledge of a criminal case or a case of accident before being required to take details of relevant individuals. But in this case, on any view of the evidence, he had no such knowledge. So he cannot possibly have been guilty of misconduct under the Code.

Hello David,

If the intention of The Code was to impose strict liability in these circumstances then he definitely was guilty of misconduct, as this was definitely a criminal case and he failed to take particulars. This is so clear cut that it's nor even a matter for debate (of course, this doesn't mean The Code, in this respect, was strictly applied, as reasonable discretion may have been exercised.)

Thus, strict liability doesn't require the element of fault. In Regina v Prince (1875) the defendant was convicted of taking a unmarried girl, under 16, out of the possession and against the will of her father. Although the jury found that the girl told the defendant that she was 18, and the defendant honestly believed the statement and the belief was reasonable, the conviction was affirmed. The statute required a strict liability application and, in such cases, knowledge isn't relevant. See: https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/2125

Of course, the intention may not have been to impose strict liability. However, in that case it's a matter of debate as to what words should be read into The Code in order to give it efficacy. Personally, I would argue that PC Mizen should have acted reasonably, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

Now, I don't say that he was definitely guilty of misconduct, or even probably guilty. But the salient issue, as I see it, is whether PC Mizen considered that there was a real risk that he could be subject to a misconduct inquiry. If so, he had a motive to lie.

[David Orsam]

It's also possible that PC Mizen was in breach of another provision of The Code. Thus, there's a provision in the Vincent Police Code entitled "Aid to the Injured." This provides that, "In serious cases of illness or injury in the streets, medical aid should be immediately procured." The emphasis is mine.

This isn't possible. You are reading from the 1912 version of the Police Code. It doesn't say it in the 1888 version.

[David Orsam]

Time for another review, methinks. Thus, on the face of it The Code imposes strict liability on an officer in respect of the requirement for taking particulars in a criminal case or an accident. On that basis PC Mizen was definitely guilty of misconduct.

This simply isn't true John. He wasn't "definitely guilty of misconduct" at all.

Police Officers could only act on the basis of their knowledge. So the Code cannot possibly have expected officers to act on the basis of hindsight (or psychic ability).

Frankly, if we took your logic then every single officer of the Metropolitan Police was "definitely guilty of misconduct" that night. None of them took the particulars of Cross and Paul. Yet there was "a criminal case" in existence.

But you will say, well of course it can't mean every other police officer, that's ridiculous, none of them spoke to Cross or Paul. But where does it say in the Code that the officer has to speak to or be spoken to by someone? All it says is that an officer is guilty of misconduct in: "Neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or a case of accident".

So unless this is nonsense it must imply that the officer is actually present at the time even though it is not expressly stated in the Code.

It must also imply that there are individuals whose details he can actually take. I mean, what if there was no-one around and Mizen found a murdered woman lying on the ground? It's a criminal case. But whose names and addresses can he take? There aren't any. So on your view of strict liability he is guilty of misconduct for not taking any names!!!

What is perfectly clear, John, is that the officer MUST have knowledge of a criminal case or a case of accident before being required to take details of relevant individuals. But in this case, on any view of the evidence, he had no such knowledge. So he cannot possibly have been guilty of misconduct under the Code.

[John G]

Time for another review, methinks. Thus, on the face of it The Code imposes strict liability on an officer in respect of the requirement for taking particulars in a criminal case or an accident. On that basis PC Mizen was definitely guilty of misconduct.

However, if it's to be argued that the intention of the authors was not to create strict liability then additional words need to be added to the provisions, i.e. in order to give The Code efficacy. And I don't accept it's as simple as saying those words should be "if a witness expressly states an accident or criminal case as occurred then particulars must be taken".

That would mean that an officer would have little responsibility, such as the reasonable exercise of discretion, on the matter. For instance, what would happen in circumstances where a witness approached an officer and reported, "There's a woman lying on the ground. Looks like she's been assaulted?" Could an officer simply avoid responsibility simply on the basis that the witness wasn't certain?

Here's another example. A member of the public approaches an officer and reports, "I've been sent by another man to report an assault. I didn't witness the assault myself, but the other man did." Again, could an officer avoid the responsibility to act simply because the witness submitting the report didn't physically witness a crime himself?

It's also possible that PC Mizen was in breach of another provision of The Code. Thus, there's a provision in the Vincent Police Code entitled "Aid to the Injured." This provides that, "In serious cases of illness or injury in the streets, medical aid should be immediately procured." The emphasis is mine.

Now, it's common ground that PC Mizen failed to act immediately, despite being informed that there was a woman lying in the streets, possibly dead. It could therefore be argued that he should have acted immediately to procure medical aid, as there was a reasonable possibility that the victim was seriously injured. And I doing accept that he would have been able to evade responsibility simply on the basis that the witness didn't state the victim was seriously injured. On that basis, the officer once again would be expected to exercise no judgment at all, but simply act as an automaton. And I really don't think that would have been the intention of the provision. For instance, if certainty were required, an officer could simply argue that he failed to act in circumstances where he was informed of a serious injury on the basis that neither he nor the witness were medically qualified, therefore they couldn't be certain that the person was seriously injured.

And, of course, it all comes down to PC Mizen's perceptions. If he felt that telling the truth could potentially get him into trouble, then he would have a motive to give an alternative account. And the fact that the incident turned out to be a highly unusual, and extremely violent, crime may have given him cause for concern.

In fact, one wonders if the press may well have been critical of PC Mizen's conduct if this had been one of the latter murders because, of course, as the series of murders developed the media became increasingly vocal in their condemnation of what they perceived as police failures.

[harry]

David,
A policeman was employed by the public service.They were his employers.He was in the police force.A policeman's powers were decided by laws.The police force operated under laws as did the public service.So a policeman had to have a working knowledge of all three,and could be affected by one,or all three at any one time.So a principle of law, while not defined in the police code,could still affect how a policeman acted.I could give you examples,but you'd claim I was making it up.
Now to training.
The three basics of training were/are ,Explanation,Demonstration,Participation.It hasn't changed from that time to this. What Mizen would have been trained in,was the requirements of the police code.The training included military style drills,powers of police officers, crowd and traffic controls,to name a few.Not very different from today.So yes,I can write from my own experiencies,as well as from knowledge of circumstances in 1888.
What do I judge Mizen on.It is a part of the police code of that time which reads,"He must report to his inspector or sergeant,the first time he sees either of them,the particulars of any accident or occurance which has come under notice"
AND
"Full particulars of all cases of accident,illness or injury in the streets,coming under notice of police,should be procured at the time"
Now you may argue that doesn't cover what Cros/Paul were reporting.I think differently
Because you are the only one challenging me on this ,and because of your repeated claims I am making things up,I will not reply or explain to anything else you write.

[David Orsam]

Why do I believe that?Be cause I have studied the Police code for that time.

You can't even get your story straight Harry. On Thursday you told me:

"Now you will not find that principle defined in the police code,but it was a principle that Mizen should have been aware of.It was a principle of law."

Now you seem to have abandoned the claim that it was a principle of law and now are now saying that the principle IS in the police code despite having told me it isn't!

Prior to that you told me that your knowledge came "from my own experience and training" but now you say you know what Mizen's training would have been and what a policeman's obligations were in 1888.

You really are making it up as you go along Harry and this is not "personnel (sic) insults".

But if you are saying that a policeman's obligation in 1888 was to take particulars in non-criminal/non-accident cases please provide some authority. Because your own beliefs based on no evidence are not good enough.

[harry]

No David,I am not making anything up,nor are my comments ridiculous.The problem is,your understanding of the subject matter is lacking.You do not know as much as you pretend to.You therefor rely on personnel insults.
I know what Mizens training would have been, what a policeman's obligations were in 1888.My beliefs are based on that knowledge,and that belief is that Mizen lied,and that he failed in his obligations to record details of his encounter with Cross and Paul.Why do I believe that?Be cause I have studied the Police code for that time.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

CL and Paul both had a good reason to lie to Mizen. Neither wanted to be late for work and so naturally wouldn't have wanted to hang around (they were both already late.) Of course I'm not claiming this to be a fact but it has to be at least a possibility.

It's possible.
However such does not have an impact on my ideas..
The story of being wanted by a policeman is only from after Neil's testimony on the 1st and probably after the Lloyds article of the 2nd.
I am more concerned with what happened according to the sources before then rather than what is said happened after.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Thanks for an honest answer. I think you have some hypothesis about the cape being some key to an understanding for why Mizen, as in your hypothesis, would have lied.

No the cape has no relevance to Mizen at all.

I think you have been trying to estimate minutes for the beats. But it is not reliable.

That depends on how one looks at it. We have statements from various officers about how long their beats took, these are however not pricise, only rough estimates.

I have looked to see if said times fit roughly with those beats.
It is not exact, as the officers themselves say, but it seems to confirm the beats.

I think maybe you think the guy Tomkins was picked as a witness since he was not in the slaughter house at the point in time when the cape was left there. So he did not know the name of the PC who left it.

Not at all. I think he knew very well when it was left and who by.
I also think any lies told had nothing to do with the Murder.

Tomkins was testifying day 2 when Neil and Thain was not at the inquest.

I think you think that Tomkins had Neil and Thain mixed up. Loyalty was to Neil from Mizen and Thain. Neil did not find Nichols after Cross and Paul. Mizen came to the site and Nichols was lying there but Neil was not there when he should have been.


Nope wrong again. I think he knew exactly who was who.
I have also heard that theory before, I see nothing to support it at all.


Mizen lied and said there was a PC (meaning Neil) at the murder site to protect Neil.


No


Did Neil leave the cape at the slaughterhouse? Did he fetch it? Was it his cape?


Possibly, No and No.
I am just guessing.

Pierre

Pierre
I have never known you to be so wrong on something. You obviously have not understood that posting at all.
My view is that what may have happened at the slaughter house had nothing to do with the Murder at all. Untruths may have been told to cover up scams by the employees on the employer.

The shame was that the 3 men were initially targeted by the press. And were only cleared by the POLICE after the local officers spoke up for them.



Steve