Leaving one's beat

[Pierre]

I absolutely do not know what you are talking about John. Are you saying a police officer is not expected to know what a crime is? Or an accident?

You seem to be overthinking this by a factor of one million.

The code is clear and simple. When a crime is known, or reported, an officer is required to takes details. The same for an accident. On all other occasions there is no requirement. Forget what transpires later. It is what is known or reported at the time.

There is no discretion there. He just follows the code.

Where there is a known or reported crime or accident. Details.

Where there is no known or reported crime or accident. No details.

Hi there,

To make it easier for you David, and help you to avoid silly concepts like "psychic" or "mind reader", you could always enlighten your opponent as to the fact that the newspapers wrote about a woman lying either "dead" or "drunk" in Buck´s Row but not one of them wrote that a woman was lying murdered in Buck´s Row.

And lying dead or drunk was not a crime in 1888, or was it?

Your dear boy Pierre

[Elamarna]

Steve,

I look forward to reading your conclusions

Another thought, which you've possibly already considered, is that maybe no one actually lied? CL and Paul would have used Bucks Row every day so it's reasonable to infer that they would have known that it was a part of a Constable's beat. It's also possible that they would have had an idea of the approximate time that the Constable entered Bucks Row. Therefore could they have 'reasonably' assumed that a Constable would have been with Nichols by either the time that they had spoken to Mizen or at least by the time that Mizen would arrive at Bucks Row?

Herlock
if they were both running late as they claimed, it is unlikely they would normally see Neil, so would have little idea of the time he would possibly pass on a normal morning, it is more likely that Lechmere may have caught sight of Thain on occasions in Darling Row, but impossible to prove.

The officer they are most likely to have seen is Mizen, if working clockwise his beat, includes Hanbury street and they are likely to have passed him at some point on occasions, without actually taking any notice.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

Yes it is very possible that there were misunderstandings.
David has consistently said that he believes that Mizen believed that he had been told another officer wanted him in Bucks Row, which does not of course mean that he was.

Simply "your needed in Bucks row" gets translated in Mizen's mind as " another policeman wants you in bucks row"

Indeed i accepted this view myself for along time, until approximately 2 months ago. I read something which took me on a different route, now if others say this new route is nonsense I will put it away unless, and revert to the misunderstanding viewpoint.

All of those you mention are possibles, but they are not backed by the data, they are what Pierre calls "what if's" and "could haves". Prefectly ok for starting an idea, but we need more if we want to present a hypothesis. We require data from the sources.

Looking at the Mizen misunderstanding view, we have the conflicting data, we can then either interpret it as one or other of the witnesses lying under oath or never or both of them are.
Which we go with is ultimately is down to the individual's analysis of the data.


Steve

Steve,

I look forward to reading your conclusions

Another thought, which you've possibly already considered, is that maybe no one actually lied? CL and Paul would have used Bucks Row every day so it's reasonable to infer that they would have known that it was a part of a Constable's beat. It's also possible that they would have had an idea of the approximate time that the Constable entered Bucks Row. Therefore could they have 'reasonably' assumed that a Constable would have been with Nichols by either the time that they had spoken to Mizen or at least by the time that Mizen would arrive at Bucks Row?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Couldn't a level of misunderstanding have occurred here. Maybe CL and Paul did indeed tell Mizen that there was a woman who was probably dead. Maybe he said something like 'ok, let me just knock up this last house.' Maybe CL and Paul thought that he'd finished with them when he actually expected them to wait until he'd finished knocking up and so maybe they carried on to work. Maybe CL and Paul didn't take much persuading that they were free to go as they were both late for work. Maybe Mizen decided not to chase after them but to go to Bucks Row. Maybe this was just a poor decision which Mizen soon realised could get him into trouble. So maybe he lied to cover his own a**e, saying that they had only told him that she was 'drunk' which would excuse him from not taking any details and that a policeman wanted him which gave him the emergency to justify him leaving his beat?

That's 8 'maybes' but, hey life full of 'em.

Hi Herlock

Yes it is very possible that there were misunderstandings.
David has consistently said that he believes that Mizen believed that he had been told another officer wanted him in Bucks Row, which does not of course mean that he was.

Simply "your needed in Bucks row" gets translated in Mizen's mind as " another policeman wants you in bucks row"

Indeed i accepted this view myself for along time, until approximately 2 months ago. I read something which took me on a different route, now if others say this new route is nonsense I will put it away unless, and revert to the misunderstanding viewpoint.

All of those you mention are possibles, but they are not backed by the data, they are what Pierre calls "what if's" and "could haves". Prefectly ok for starting an idea, but we need more if we want to present a hypothesis. We require data from the sources.

Looking at the Mizen misunderstanding view, we have the conflicting data, we can then either interpret it as one or other of the witnesses lying under oath or never or both of them are.
Which we go with is ultimately is down to the individual's analysis of the data.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is the exact point David, there was no criticism maybe because he claimed another officer had sent them and so that officer should have taken the details.
Of course when it appears that such had not happened, it can and surely was viewed as a mistake/misunderstanding and so no blame attached at all..

If Mizen did not feel what was told him was an emergency there was no Need to take any details.
Johns point that it may have been prudent to take details anyway is probably true in hindsight, but it was not required.

However not being required and looking bad in the press are different matters, but surely not enough on their own to force Mizen to lie.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Couldn't a level of misunderstanding have occurred here. Maybe CL and Paul did indeed tell Mizen that there was a woman who was probably dead. Maybe he said something like 'ok, let me just knock up this last house.' Maybe CL and Paul thought that he'd finished with them when he actually expected them to wait until he'd finished knocking up and so maybe they carried on to work. Maybe CL and Paul didn't take much persuading that they were free to go as they were both late for work. Maybe Mizen decided not to chase after them but to go to Bucks Row. Maybe this was just a poor decision which Mizen soon realised could get him into trouble. So maybe he lied to cover his own a**e, saying that they had only told him that she was 'drunk' which would excuse him from not taking any details and that a policeman wanted him which gave him the emergency to justify him leaving his beat?

That's 8 'maybes' but, hey life full of 'em.

[David Orsam]

Okay, if you think the Code should be read literally then he was guilty of misconduct, because the Nichols case was a criminal case and he failed to take particulars.

I have never said that "the Code should be read literally". I have said on countless times that Mizen was not told by the carmen that the Nichols case was a criminal case, therefore he could not possibly have known that the Nichols case was a criminal case and the Code was not written for psychic police officers.

The Code says nothing about acting only when a member of the public gives a view that it's a criminal case. Those are words that you've elected to read into the document despite insisting that it should be given a literal interpretation!

I have never at any time insisted that the Code should be given "a literal interpretation". It was you who introduced that concept. The Code should just be read in normal English, in which language it has a plain and simple meaning.

The fact that he wasn't disciplined implies that, contrary to your opinion, the Code wasn't applied literally.

The premise of that sentence is mistaken because you have evidently misunderstood my opinion.

[John G]

No, John, we are not agreed on this at all. I have said that the Code is clear and simple. It makes perfect sense.



That is totally different but the Code is clear that in a criminal case an officer is required to take particulars.



There is no "problem" in the drafting of the Code. I haven't tried to "get round" anything.

You were the one who seemed to think that a police officer should be psychic. That meant you were interpreting the Code wrongly.



It's not a case of trusting the witness. It's just a case of taking particulars of a person who reports a crime.



Your views on what a "prudent officer" should have done are irrelevant. That is not in the Code. The Code did not require constables to be psychic or be able to predict the future. As far as I am aware, not a single contemporary criticism was made of Mizen for not taken the particulars of the carmen. It's a wholly modern obsession. There was nothing in the Code that required him to take the details so he didn't. It's simple.

Okay, if you think the Code should be read literally then he was guilty of misconduct, because the Nichols case was a criminal case and he failed to take particulars.

The Code says nothing about acting only when a member of the public gives a view that it's a criminal case. Those are words that you've elected to read into the document despite insisting that it should be given a literal interpretation!

The fact that he wasn't disciplined implies that, contrary to your opinion, the Code wasn't applied literally.

[Elamarna]

No, John, we are not agreed on this at all. I have said that the Code is clear and simple. It makes perfect sense.



That is totally different but the Code is clear that in a criminal case an officer is required to take particulars.



There is no "problem" in the drafting of the Code. I haven't tried to "get round" anything.

You were the one who seemed to think that a police officer should be psychic. That meant you were interpreting the Code wrongly.



It's not a case of trusting the witness. It's just a case of taking particulars of a person who reports a crime.



Your views on what a "prudent officer" should have done are irrelevant. That is not in the Code. The Code did not require constables to be psychic or be able to predict the future. As far as I am aware, not a single contemporary criticism was made of Mizen for not taken the particulars of the carmen. It's a wholly modern obsession. There was nothing in the Code that required him to take the details so he didn't. It's simple.

That is the exact point David, there was no criticism maybe because he claimed another officer had sent them and so that officer should have taken the details.
Of course when it appears that such had not happened, it can and surely was viewed as a mistake/misunderstanding and so no blame attached at all..

If Mizen did not feel what was told him was an emergency there was no Need to take any details.
Johns point that it may have been prudent to take details anyway is probably true in hindsight, but it was not required.

However not being required and looking bad in the press are different matters, but surely not enough on their own to force Mizen to lie.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Time for an overview. I think we're both agreed that, read literally, The Code makes no sense

No, John, we are not agreed on this at all. I have said that the Code is clear and simple. It makes perfect sense.

or at least it imposes strict liability on the officer.

That is totally different but the Code is clear that in a criminal case an officer is required to take particulars.

This is because an officer is required to take down particulars in a criminal case or an accident, but as you yourself point out he would have to be psychic to know that one of those events had taken place if he hadn't witnessed it himself.

You attempt to get round this problem by effectively inserting the words "informed by a witness" into The Code.

There is no "problem" in the drafting of the Code. I haven't tried to "get round" anything.

You were the one who seemed to think that a police officer should be psychic. That meant you were interpreting the Code wrongly.

However, I would argue this makes no sense as it would mean the officer would be expected to exercise no judgement at all: he's simply expected to trust the witness, no matter how unreliable or dishonest they appear to be.

It's not a case of trusting the witness. It's just a case of taking particulars of a person who reports a crime.

Conversely, my argument is that he would be expected to weigh up all the circumstances and then exercise good judgement. Thus, if it appeared from the information he was given that a crime or accident had occurred, or if this was a realistic possibility, then he should take down particulars. In the case of Nichols, Cross testified that he informed PC Mizen that she was lying down possibly dead. In these circumstances she may well have had an accident or have been subjected to an assault.

I would have thought, therefore, that a prudent officer would take down particulars in these circumstances, particularly as it might turn out to be an accident or criminal case and he was aware that, in that case, he could be held strictly liable for his failure to do so.

That might explain why he would feel the need to present an alternative scenario, whereby he was informed he was wanted by another officer.

Your views on what a "prudent officer" should have done are irrelevant. That is not in the Code. The Code did not require constables to be psychic or be able to predict the future. As far as I am aware, not a single contemporary criticism was made of Mizen for not taken the particulars of the carmen. It's a wholly modern obsession. There was nothing in the Code that required him to take the details so he didn't. It's simple.

[John G]

Well, John, if you don't think that a constable was required to take down particulars on the basis that a crime had been reported to him then there is no possible criticism of Mizen for not taking particulars where no crime had been reported to him is there?

Hello David,

Time for an overview. I think we're both agreed that, read literally, The Code makes no sense, or at least it imposes strict liability on the officer. This is because an officer is required to take down particulars in a criminal case or an accident, but as you yourself point out he would have to be psychic to know that one of those events had taken place if he hadn't witnessed it himself.

You attempt to get round this problem by effectively inserting the words "informed by a witness" into The Code. However, I would argue this makes no sense as it would mean the officer would be expected to exercise no judgement at all: he's simply expected to trust the witness, no matter how unreliable or dishonest they appear to be.

Conversely, my argument is that he would be expected to weigh up all the circumstances and then exercise good judgement. Thus, if it appeared from the information he was given that a crime or accident had occurred, or if this was a realistic possibility, then he should take down particulars. In the case of Nichols, Cross testified that he informed PC Mizen that she was lying down possibly dead. In these circumstances she may well have had an accident or have been subjected to an assault.

I would have thought, therefore, that a prudent officer would take down particulars in these circumstances, particularly as it might turn out to be an accident or criminal case and he was aware that, in that case, he could be held strictly liable for his failure to do so.

That might explain why he would feel the need to present an alternative scenario, whereby he was informed he was wanted by another officer.

[harry]

What Mizen should have done depends on what he was told.As he did leave his beat,and it appears he left because of what was reported to him by Cross/Paul,one might expect it was a little more than,"You are wanted in Bucks Row".If the word dead was mentioned,by either Cross or Paul,alone or in combination with any other description,it was an incident that should have been recorded by Mizen in his notebook,along with the names of Cross and Paul,at that time.
The power to demand names and question persons was Mizen's.He needed no other cause than reasonable belief.
Was Mizen disciplined? Maybe a verbal caution?

[David Orsam]

But where does the Code say that he should take down particulars simply on the basis that a crime has been reported?

Well, John, if you don't think that a constable was required to take down particulars on the basis that a crime had been reported to him then there is no possible criticism of Mizen for not taking particulars where no crime had been reported to him is there?

[John G]

I thought we were talking about "sensible construction" John. Or are we back on "literal interpretation" now?

A member of the public approaches an officer and says: "I wish to report a murder/assault/theft/burglary/fraud etc. or an accident". According to the code, the officer is obliged to take details. That's because it's a criminal case or a case of accident, regardless of what he then discovers.

If a crime is not reported to him, and he is unaware of a crime having occurred (same with accident), the code doesn't apply.

It's the most simple thing in the world so I fail to see why you are struggling with it.

Hello David,

But where does the Code say that he should take down particulars simply on the basis that a crime has been reported? That in no way necessarily means that a crime has actually taken place. And it certainly doesn't make it a "criminal case".

My salient point here is that, applying a literal meaning, the Code makes no sense. That's why I suggest some sort of Mischief Rule should be applied.

Thus, how can it be a "criminal case" simply because someone says they wish to report an assault or an accident?

Let me put it this way. If you're interpretation is correct that means if a man approaches an officer and says there's a woman lying unconscious in the street, bleeding profusely, and possibly dead, with a bloody knife lying besides the body, he doesn't take particulars even though he might reasonably conclude that a crime, or accident, might have occurred, i.e. on the basis that no crime has been reported.

On the other hand, if a deeply intoxicated person approaches the same officer, or maybe someone who appears to be mentally ill, and then proceeds to give a rambling and largely incoherent account, but just happens to mention that he's discovered an accident, then the officer is expected to take down particulars, even though he might strongly suspect that the person's account is totally unreliable.

How does that make sense?

[David Orsam]

No, what I'm saying is that an officer cannot be expected to know whether a crime or accident has actually taken place simply on the basis of what a member of the public had told him. That's a logical certainty. And where does the Code expressly say that he should take down particulars simply because a crime has been reported?

I thought we were talking about "sensible construction" John. Or are we back on "literal interpretation" now?

A member of the public approaches an officer and says: "I wish to report a murder/assault/theft/burglary/fraud etc. or an accident". According to the code, the officer is obliged to take details. That's because it's a criminal case or a case of accident, regardless of what he then discovers.

If a crime is not reported to him, and he is unaware of a crime having occurred (same with accident), the code doesn't apply.

It's the most simple thing in the world so I fail to see why you are struggling with it.

[John G]

I absolutely do not know what you are talking about John. Are you saying a police officer is not expected to know what a crime is? Or an accident?

You seem to be overthinking this by a factor of one million.

The code is clear and simple. When a crime is known, or reported, an officer is required to takes details. The same for an accident. On all other occasions there is no requirement. Forget what transpires later. It is what is known or reported at the time.

There is no discretion there. He just follows the code.

Where there is a known or reported crime or accident. Details.

Where there is no known or reported crime or accident. No details.

No, what I'm saying is that an officer cannot be expected to know whether a crime or accident has actually taken place simply on the basis of what a member of the public had told him. That's a logical certainty. And where does the Code expressly say that he should take down particulars simply because a crime has been reported?