Leaving one's beat

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;425553]

Okay, if you accept the Code shouldn't be read literally then there can be a number of opinions as to how it should be interpreted.

Your interpretation is that this was not a "criminal case", for the purposes of the Code, because PC Mizen had not been told it was a criminal case.

However, I would still maintain that is a flawed argument as it could lead to absurd results.

Thus, hypothetically PC Mizen is informed by a witness that an assault has taken place.

Your interpretation means this is now a criminal case and particulars should be taken. However, when Mizen investigates he discovers that the witness has got the wrong end of the stick, it was just a couple of people larking about, so not a criminal case after all and particulars did not need to be taken.

Or a drunk approaches him and gives a rambling account which involves being witness to a murder. Mizen questions the drunk and determines he's talking complete nonsense. Nonetheless, based upon your interpretation of the Code this is still a criminal case.

That's why I still maintain that it could not have been intended to define a criminal case simply on the basis of a witness saying or intimating it was thus.

In order for the Code to have efficacy an officer must have been expected to exercise sensible judgement in deciding whether to take particulars. And simply because a witness says that he's seen a woman lying down, possibly dead, rather than, say, lying down, therefore maybe the victim of an assault or murder, or perhaps an accident, doesn't seem to be a sensible reason not to take particulars.

Particularly when Mizen' s superiors might elect to apply the Code literally, i e . Nichols was murdered, therefore a criminal case, therefore Mizen should, under a strict interpretation of the Code, have taken particulars.

Murder was a rare cause of death in Whitechapel in 1888.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

John, you seem to be utterly obsessed with the idea of people "larking about" and giving false reports of criminal offences to police officers.

I'm sure the Code wasn't drafted with that in mind but it doesn't matter. When a criminal offence is reported he takes down the particulars and he is following the Code. There is nothing absurd about it.

If he is certain that there is in reality no criminal offence then he (obviously) doesn't need to take particulars but it's a risk if there turns out to be one and he hasn't followed the Code.

But that's the type of risk that faces all police officers all the time. People DO falsely report crimes today and we know that this has led to massive police investigations, huge waste of public money, and all because the police can't now be seen to ignore or dismiss any reports of offences, especially sexual ones. So yes strict rules CAN lead to absurd results but in 1888 all the constable had to do was take the particulars when a crime was reported to him.

When Mizen was approached by the two carmen no crime was reported, so no particulars. I refer you to Pierre in this respect.

[Elamarna]

Just catching up, with street names, the one that interests me is Cross's claim in the Morning Advertiser,

"I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row."

No Parson in the area, ever, as far as I can tell.

Closest is Pereira Street, next to Foster. It was called Park Street, Park Street/ Parson could be a mishearing.

What intrigues me is the term, "I went down", On the map Pereira would be consistant with "down", but, of course, "down" can mean along! I've checked if Cross describes going "down" Buck's Row, he doesn't.

So, all in all I'm wondering if he did, in fact, go down Pereira?

Hi Dusty

I touched on that issue in part 1. Its my route #3.
It's of course possible he went this way, but it's far from the fastest route he could have used and one of the least direct.

probably just completely misheard and reported as was Mizen's Campbell street.

Steve

[John G]

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.



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

Okay, if you accept the Code shouldn't be read literally then there can be a number of opinions as to how it should be interpreted.

Your interpretation is that this was not a "criminal case", for the purposes of the Code, because PC Mizen had not been told it was a criminal case.

However, I would still maintain that is a flawed argument as it could lead to absurd results.

Thus, hypothetically PC Mizen is informed by a witness that an assault has taken place. Your interpretation means this is now a criminal case and particulars should be taken. However, when Mizen investigates he discovers that the witness has got the wrong end of the stick, it was just a couple of people larking about, so not a criminal case after all and particulars did not need to be taken.

Or a drunk approaches him and gives a rambling account which involves being witness to a murder. Mizen questions the drunk and determines he's talking complete nonsense. Nonetheless, based upon your interpretation of the Code this is still a criminal case.

That's why I still maintain that it could not have been intended to define a criminal case simply on the basis of a witness saying or intimating it was thus.

In order for the Code to have efficacy an officer must have been expected to exercise sensible judgement in deciding whether to take particulars. And simply because a witness says that he's seen a woman lying down, possibly dead, rather than, say, lying down, therefore maybe the victim of an assault or murder, or perhaps an accident, doesn't seem to be a sensible reason not to take particulars.

Particularly when Mizen' s superiors might elect to apply the Code literally, i e . Nichols was murdered, therefore a criminal case, therefore Mizen should, under a strict interpretation of the Code, have taken particulars.

[drstrange169]

>>One could say that we do not know what name he actually gave ...<<

What people tend to forget is that, Xmere appeared in court twice.

The first time, to be identified by Mizen. When you look for similar instances in courts, you find the person is identified by name and address for the court records.

[drstrange169]

Just catching up, with street names, the one that interests me is Cross's claim in the Morning Advertiser,

"I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row."

No Parson in the area, ever, as far as I can tell.

Closest is Pereira Street, next to Foster. It was called Park Street, Park Street/ Parson could be a mishearing.

What intrigues me is the term, "I went down", On the map Pereira would be consistant with "down", but, of course, "down" can mean along! I've checked if Cross describes going "down" Buck's Row, he doesn't.

So, all in all I'm wondering if he did, in fact, go down Pereira?

[Elamarna]

Dear Steve,

It will be very interesting to see how you establish an intention as a historical fact, especially since that intention was not practised.

Cheers, Pierre

Yes it will.
I would normally agree such was not really possible, but let's see what happens..
For now it does not exist has I have not disclosed it, however thread development last week forced me to give a few hints.

Steve

[Pierre]

Agreed, but there was a request to go to Bucks Row, be that from the Carmen or another officer. The issue however is not about hurrying; it's what was the intention after leaving the Carmen

Dear Steve,

It will be very interesting to see how you establish an intention as a historical fact, especially since that intention was not practised.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

And # 281-283 above is of course the historical solution of the so called Mizen Scam.

Congratulations, David. You have helped to solve it.

Thank you.

Your dear boy Pierre

My dear Pierre, that is not achieved until proof of another officer in Bucks Row is provided.
The disputed word of Mizen alone is not enough for that.

What you have is a possible solution, one of several.

Steve

[Elamarna]

He was not in need of lies to avoid looking bad.

That is a matter of opinion Pierre and has you do not yet know my full position you cannot challenge it. However I look forward to you doing so, in the near future.

He knew nothing about any murder.

Very true

There was no crime to hurry to.

Agreed, but there was a request to go to Bucks Row, be that from the Carmen or another officer. The issue however is not about hurrying; it's what was the intention after leaving the Carmen

Steve

[Pierre]

And # 281-283 above is of course the historical solution of the so called Mizen Scam.

Congratulations, David. You have helped to solve it.

Thank you.

Your dear boy Pierre

[Pierre]

He was not in need of lies to avoid looking bad.

He knew nothing about any murder.

There was no crime to hurry to.

Pierre

And Paul knew about the murder when he was interviewed.

This discussion had been interesting. People here interpret things from the perspective of historical knowledge they have after the event in Buck´s Row. As did Paul in the press in 1888.

But Mizen knew nothing and could not be blamed for anything. A woman lying in the street. Not a pretty sight but nothing unusual in Whitechapel. And there was already a PC in place. So why hurry.

Pierre

[Pierre]

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

He was not in need of lies to avoid looking bad.

He knew nothing about any murder.

There was no crime to hurry to.

Pierre

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;425463

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.

Indeed.

So if someone walked up to Mizen and reported having seen a murder, the particulars would have been taken, since murder was a crime.

It is a matter of rules for different types of reports.

No crime, no particulars.

So Lechmere did not tell Mizen about a crime since he did not think it was a crime.

He reported there was a policeman in Buck´s Row already, according to Mizen.

So in that moment, Lechmere did not understand it was a crime.

And the policeman in Buck´s Row did not tell him it was a crime.

Lechmere was not the killer.

So why was he in need of inventing a policeman in Buck´s Row?

And why did that policeman not tell Lechmere that the woman was murdered?

So he could get the assistance he needed?

Pierre

[David Orsam]

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

My dear boy I'm not terribly interested in what "the newspapers wrote" but your assistance in this matter is enormously appreciated.