Leaving one's beat

[John G]

What if the drunk was lying in a position where her stiff collar was restricting her breathing? He may have arrived in time to save her life.

But that could theoretically apply to anyone who was found insensibly drunk in the street. If he kept disappearing from his beat on such flimsy/dubious pretexts I doubt he would remain in service long enough to collect his pension!

[Joshua Rogan]

But surely that's part of the problem, Abby . If he abandoned his beat to attend a mere drunk, obviously not an emergency, which is about the only justification he had, he could have been facing misconduct charges.

What if the drunk was lying in a position where her stiff collar was restricting her breathing? He may have arrived in time to save her life.

[John G]

Dead or drunk... lying in the street...etc.

he probably thought just another drunk, but better go check it out just to be sure. That's what I would have thought.

I mean seriously-whats the chance he would have thought that she was dead in any case? How common were dead women in the street?

But surely that's part of the problem, Abby . If he abandoned his beat to attend a mere drunk, obviously not an emergency, which is about the only justification he had, he could have been facing misconduct charges.

[Abby Normal]

Dead or drunk... lying in the street...etc.

he probably thought just another drunk, but better go check it out just to be sure. That's what I would have thought.

I mean seriously-whats the chance he would have thought that she was dead in any case? How common were dead women in the street?

[John G]

Hi John

He said that he was told that a woman was lying in Bucks Row but that she was drunk and not dead. Might he not have thought ' well I've got my knocking up duties to perform surely this 'other policeman' can deal with a drunken women?

Hi Herlock,

Thanks. Surely a woman passed out drunk wouldn't have been a sufficient reason to leave his beat? I mean, it was hardly an emergency; rather a pretty flimsy pretext. Could that explain why he said he was told he was wanted by another officer who, under the regulations, could only summon his assitance in an emergency?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But does PC Mizen say that he knew there was a body in Bucks Row? He says that he was simply told he was wanted by a policemen.

Hi John

He said that he was told that a woman was lying in Bucks Row but that she was drunk and not dead. Might he not have thought ' well I've got my knocking up duties to perform surely this 'other policeman' can deal with a drunken women?

[John G]

Thanks Steve. I look forward to the results of your research surrounding 'the Scam.'

So am I! I'm sure it will be both thorough and exceptionally well researched.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very good questions Herlock. The very same I asked myself.
The answer to which unlocks the maze of the "Scam".



Steve

Thanks Steve. I look forward to the results of your research surrounding 'the Scam.'

[Herlock Sholmes]

lech may have said something like-"your needed in Bucks row..."

Hi Abby,

I've always thought this likely. He could have simply meant 'you're presence is required....'

[John G]

Very good questions Herlock. The very same I asked myself.
The answer to which unlocks the maze of the "Scam".



Steve

But does PC Mizen say that he knew there was a body in Bucks Row? He says that he was simply told he was wanted by a policemen.

[John G]

The woman wasn't supposedly drunk. She was described as "dead or drunk". Obviously we now know that she was dead but Mizen didn't. What he did know was that she was, whether through drink or otherwise, in a bad way. Saying that this didn't "involve protection of life" is being wise after the event. Mizen didn't know what exactly the problem was so yes, 'protection of life' is a factor here. The fact that she was, in actual fact, dead doesn't excuse Mizen from taking action. Had she been drunk it would have been a police matter. She was in fact (as Cross & Paul suggested was the other possibility) dead. A dead body lying in the gutter is not something which should be left until the relevant beat officer passes on his next circuit.



Did I say that? No, I didn't, so I'll confine myself to the matter in hand. Mizen received a report about a woman who was "dead or drunk" (so clearly unresponsive) on a street a short distance away. He was obliged to act on that report and would have been perfectly justified in leaving his beat to do so. Had the woman been merely drunk he could have handed responsibility over to the 'J' Division officer when he arrived on his next circuit, then returned to his own beat.

But PC Mizen doesn't say that he was told there was a woman who was "dead or drunk." To the contrary, he stated under oath that he was informed he was required by another officer. And as the two alternatives are so radically different, I see absolutely no possibility he could have misheard, or have been otherwise confused, about the information he was given.

[Elamarna]

Hi all.

Questions, questions!

Why did Neil apparently believe that he'd discovered the body? Why didn't he or, even more relevantly, his superiors ask the obvious question when he was going over events with them: why did Mizen turn up? He'd got no other reason to be there so how did he know that there was a body in Bucks Row if he hadn't been told about it? And so...who told him? Why did no one suss this?

Very good questions Herlock. The very same I asked myself.
The answer to which unlocks the maze of the "Scam".



Steve

[Robert St Devil]

I think it's more likely that Mizen lied about being told that he was wanted by an officer to try and justify his decision not to detain CL and Paul. He could then have 'explained' that he'd assumed the other officer had at least taken their names or exonerated him.

i agree. he doesn't seem to offer much at the inquest other than to contradict Cross, so his purpose for attendance is questionable. if he claims that Cross said "dead", then he holds more responsibility for allowing two potential suspects to walk by him unchecked in light of the fact that "a dead woman" turned out to be Polly Nichols.

[Bridewell]

This is undoubtedly true but how did attending to a supposedly drunk woman lying in the street (in another beat) involve protection of life?

The woman wasn't supposedly drunk. She was described as "dead or drunk". Obviously we now know that she was dead but Mizen didn't. What he did know was that she was, whether through drink or otherwise, in a bad way. Saying that this didn't "involve protection of life" is being wise after the event. Mizen didn't know what exactly the problem was so yes, 'protection of life' is a factor here. The fact that she was, in actual fact, dead doesn't excuse Mizen from taking action. Had she been drunk it would have been a police matter. She was in fact (as Cross & Paul suggested was the other possibility) dead. A dead body lying in the gutter is not something which should be left until the relevant beat officer passes on his next circuit.

Was a beat officer responsible for EVERY drunk person on EVERY other beat in London?

Did I say that? No, I didn't, so I'll confine myself to the matter in hand. Mizen received a report about a woman who was "dead or drunk" (so clearly unresponsive) on a street a short distance away. He was obliged to act on that report and would have been perfectly justified in leaving his beat to do so. Had the woman been merely drunk he could have handed responsibility over to the 'J' Division officer when he arrived on his next circuit, then returned to his own beat.

[John G]

I think there are all sorts of possibilities. Maybe PC Mizen was told that there was a woman lying down either drunk, or possibly dead. He eventually decided to respond, but when he subsequently discusses the matter with colleagues it transpires he maybe shouldn't have, as this is a bit of a grey area in terms of justifying Mizen leaving his beat and therefore avoiding disciplinary action. He therefore decides to "firm up" his explanation, claiming that he was responding to a fellow officer who needed assistance.