Leaving one's beat

[John G]

It seems we are debating should and could.

And the answers are clear I believe.

Should Mizen have taken names?

No absolute need to, in the circumstances it was not a requirement.
If sent by another officer, that officer should have taken details.
If not, well as David and Pierre have said he was not informed of a crime.


Could Mizen have taken the names?

Of course he could have, and it may have beeb sensible to have done so, has John suggested, if he intended to respond to the incident, but there was no need to.

And there is no evidence to suggest that he would be unduly critised for not doing so.


Steve

Where does the Code say he should take particulars when informed of a crime?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425771]

It seems we are debating should and could.

And the answers are clear I believe.

Should Mizen have taken names?

Hi Steve,

that is one way of operationalizing the problem.

However one problem with that operationalization is that the notorius Shouldhaves and Couldhaves so very often are used within ripperology and also in the Lechmere idea (in this set of concepts we also find the terrible Wouldhaves).

A problem is inherit in the "Couldhave": of course many people could have done many things, or "nothing is impossible". But it is very seldom established as historical facts that they did!

And so John is clearly having a problem with this, which is normal when trying the Couldhaves.

Yet another problem is inherit in the "Shouldhave": we apply a norm on the past and say: they should have acted so or so. But the past is the past and we must differ between our history about the past and the past itself.

And he is having a problem with this too. He thinks Mizen should have acted in another way. But Mizen had to (!) pay attention to the Code.

So Mizen did not bother with Johnīs "Shouldhaves" - or with Paulīs.

No absolute need to, in the circumstances it was not a requirement.
If sent by another officer, that officer should have taken details.
If not, well as David and Pierre have said he was not informed of a crime.

An hypothesis of "need to and requirement": this is a hypothesis about necessity. It is a good hypothesis to use when anaylzing the past. History shows that people very often have done what they thought was needed and required to do.

Could Mizen have taken the names?

Of course he could have, and it may have beeb sensible to have done so, has John suggested, if he intended to respond to the incident, but there was no need to.

So I also vote for the concept of need here.

Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;425766]

Allow me.

1. This was clearly NOT a "high profile case" 31 August when Cross spoke to Mizen. So David is not missing anything.

It was a simple case of Mizen being wanted by a policeman in Buckīs Row where a woman was lying dead or drunk. No crime. Nothing extraordinay in Whitechapel. Just the thing the police had to handle every day. Normality.

The rest came AFTER that.

2. "...at least one newspaper was highly critical of Mizen": The newspapers, be it their journalists or the people they interviewed, in this case Paul, was "highly critical" of many things.



Mizen had not any reason for being "acutely aware" of the following when he spoke with Cross:

throat cuts
abdomen cuts

Tell me John: Were these cuts pictured in his head when he spoke to Cross or were they not?




It is nowhere in the Code that "an officer is expected to be little more than a bystander in these cases, i.e. the cases where some woman lying on the street is reported as lying there, being dead or drunk."

It is in the Code that he shall take particulars if a crime has been committed or is reported?



This idea is an idea from our own time. The critical grand idea that "the public should be" "the final"" (!!!) determinator is hyperbolic and perhaps serves your purpose to criticize Mizen from some democratic point of view or a feeling of general justice, but it was really just a simple matter of reporting particulars when a crime had occured in 1888.



Indeed, and so he did.



Exactly. And since noone knew that, there was no activation of the rule of taking particulars.



And I refer you to David: Mizen was not psychic, so the phrase "potentially" is not relevant.

Where does it say he should take particulars if a crime is reported?

[John G]

But what validity do your thoughts have John? Can you give me any examples of police constables from the 19th century taking particulars in such circumstances, just in case an accident or crime "may potentially have occurred"?

I'm sure you can't and you must be wrong. If the Code had wanted constables to take particulars in every case where a crime or accident "may potentially have occurred" it would have said so. That it makes no requirement means that you must be wrong.

Of course, had it made such a requirement it would have made no sense because in effect it would have required a Constable to take particulars on every almost single occasion he spoke to a member of the public. One minute you are going on about the absurdity of taking particulars when someone is drunk or larking about, the next minute you tell me with a straight face that a constable needs to take particulars just case a crime "may potentially have occurred", thus imposing an impossible burden which the drafters of the Code cannot possibly have intended and which Mizen's superiors, or the public, cannot possibly have expected him to carry.

I'm sure he wasn't expected to take particulars in every case. No doubt most cases he dealt with were trivial and mundane. However, this one wasn't, so questions could have arisen as to whether he should have taken particulars in this case.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;425778]

Where does it say he should take particulars if a crime is reported?

Exactly John. That is the exact question I am asking you:

"It is in the Code that he shall take particulars if a crime has been committed or is reported? "

Pierre

[David Orsam]

I'm sure he wasn't expected to take particulars in every case.

But how does he know? A crime could have potentially occurred in any instance. The person who asks him directions could be fleeing the scene of a crime. A report of an open door or window could mean a burglary has taken place. A loose dog reported to him might have attacked someone and left them dying.

He can only go by what he is told and in this case he has (apparently) been told that no more than that a woman is either dead or drunk, lying in the street. No crime has been witnessed or reported. No accident has been witnessed or reported. It is not, therefore, at that time, a criminal case. Nor is it, at that time, a case of an accident.

It might turn out to be a criminal case or a case of an accident and then, but only then, he should start taking the particulars of anyone who witnessed it or was in any way involved.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;425777]

Hi Steve,

that is one way of operationalizing the problem.

However one problem with that operationalization is that the notorius Shouldhaves and Couldhaves so very often are used within ripperology and also in the Lechmere idea (in this set of concepts we also find the terrible Wouldhaves).

A problem is inherit in the "Couldhave": of course many people could have done many things, or "nothing is impossible". But it is very seldom established as historical facts that they did!

And so John is clearly having a problem with this, which is normal when trying the Couldhaves.

Yet another problem is inherit in the "Shouldhave": we apply a norm on the past and say: they should have acted so or so. But the past is the past and we must differ between our history about the past and the past itself.

And he is having a problem with this too. He thinks Mizen should have acted in another way. But Mizen had to (!) pay attention to the Code.

So Mizen did not bother with Johnīs "Shouldhaves" - or with Paulīs.



An hypothesis of "need to and requirement": this is a hypothesis about necessity. It is a good hypothesis to use when anaylzing the past. History shows that people very often have done what they thought was needed and required to do.



So I also vote for the concept of need here.

Pierre

No argument from me on that


steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whilst I can't disagree with David's understanding of what burdens of duty the code placed on an officer in 1888 it does sound strange to these 21st century ears. Today if we were told that a woman was lying 'dead or drunk' in the street the word 'dead' would obvious raise alarm bells (metaphorical ones of course ) We would consider that there's probably a one in three chance of a crime or accident (the other being that she just dropped down dead.) But I'm not a Victorian policeman with a code to work by.

There are of course discrepancies with regard to who said what to whom but it does seem that, as the code existed, Mizen didn't need to take details. He himself said that he'd been told that there was a woman lying drunk and that a Constable wanted him (nothing about a crime or accident.) CL and Paul said that they had told him dead or drunk but probably dead (nothing about a crime or an accident.)

[harry]

Police officers in 1888,as today,were expected to react to incidents observed by them or reported to them by members of the public.Not all incidents were/ are of a criminal nature.How they reacted to such incidents were dictated by departmental policy and training.The meeting with Cross and Paul about 3.45 am was an incident which convinced Mizen to leave his beat and investigate.
Mizen had an obligation to the department to report his actions.His training would have instilled a need to obtain particulars of the person/persons reporting.He had opportunity to do that.He had an issued notebook in which to record particulars.He didn't do so.He was in breach of his responsibilities.
I doubt he was let off scot free.A verbal caution at least.

[Robert St Devil]

Harry & Robert,

It's a very good motive and very close to my view on the events. Although I take it a bit further.
There is no conspiracy as you say Robert, it just a man who has made a mistake, which had no material affect on the crime, trying to protect his reputation.

Steve

my thoughts on the matter are two-fold steve. the first, did pc mizen's accountability come into question only after the severity of the crime was realized? the second involves his presence at the inquest.

if you erase all the parts about the carmen out of his statement, the most that you are left with is:
i went for the ambulance.

would this scant account of his involvement have warranted coroner baxter calling him before the inquest jury had there been no carmen? i have my doubts.

he only seems to be at the inquest to refute paul's statement in the Lloyd's article, appearing dutiful rather than negligent. i dont think metro was worried as much about pc mizen's reputation as... their own. since metro was willing to let this discrepancy between lechmere and mizen slide without further investigation, it suggests to me that they favored lechmere's story or concluded that the argument was irrelevant to the case.

[David Orsam]

Mizen had an obligation to the department to report his actions.His training would have instilled a need to obtain particulars of the person/persons reporting.He had opportunity to do that.He had an issued notebook in which to record particulars.He didn't do so.He was in breach of his responsibilities.

The only problem with that, Harry, is you are making it all up.

It's not what the Police Code says. There was no requirement for him "to obtain particulars of person/persons reporting" in circumstances where they were not reporting a criminal offence nor an accident nor have you provided any evidence that this was something he was trained to do.

[Elamarna]

my thoughts on the matter are two-fold steve. the first, did pc mizen's accountability come into question only after the severity of the crime was realized? the second involves his presence at the inquest.

if you erase all the parts about the carmen out of his statement, the most that you are left with is:
i went for the ambulance.

would this scant account of his involvement have warranted coroner baxter calling him before the inquest jury had there been no carmen? i have my doubts.

he only seems to be at the inquest to refute paul's statement in the Lloyd's article, appearing dutiful rather than negligent. i dont think metro was worried as much about pc mizen's reputation as... their own. since metro was willing to let this discrepancy between lechmere and mizen slide without further investigation, it suggests to me that they favored lechmere's story or concluded that the argument was irrelevant to the case.

Robert

If you ignore the Carmen, you are left with a little more than you think..

I agree the POLICE has an institution possibly favoured Lechmere's version of event's; there are sources which suggest at least, that they placed little credence on Mizen's.

And it was irrelevant to the murder, unless that is Pierre's hypothesis is shown to be correct.


Steve

[harry]

Not making anything up,David.The police code was an interpretation of the law that gave power to police officers.It directed officers how and when to act
I can give many instancies of police officers acting in circumstances that were not a breach of the law.You have stated one,accidents.
As to training,no I cannot refer to a training manual regarding the use of notebooks in 1888,can you?,but I can state from my own experience and training,that an officer should not rely on memory,but at the first opportunity commit conversations to writing, and obtain particulars of a person/persons giving information.I find it hard to understand that it would be any different in 1888.That is a primary reason notebooks were issued.

[David Orsam]

Not making anything up,David.The police code was an interpretation of the law that gave power to police officers.It directed officers how and when to act
I can give many instancies of police officers acting in circumstances that were not a breach of the law.You have stated one,accidents.
As to training,no I cannot refer to a training manual regarding the use of notebooks in 1888,can you?,but I can state from my own experience and training,that an officer should not rely on memory,but at the first opportunity commit conversations to writing, and obtain particulars of a person/persons giving information.I find it hard to understand that it would be any different in 1888.That is a primary reason notebooks were issued.

The problem, Harry, is that you have no experience of the training for an officer in 1888. Nor do you have any evidence of what they needed to put into their notebooks. That is why I say you are "making it up".

You are simply applying modern policing guidance to the nineteenth century which is wholly inappropriate.

I wouldn't mind but we have the Police Code for the period which tell us precisely in what circumstances an officer was required to take particulars: criminal case and accident.

[harry]

David,
There is evidence of what police officers in 1888 entered in their notebooks.Read related cases from that time.
It is also,from reading of old cases,possible to form an opinion of how departments operated,and in some cases, individual officers.
The evidence is there,do not accuse me of making things up.
So let me give you a general principle that covers what I have written.
It is,an employee has a responsibility to his employers to inform them of anything that relates to his employment.Mizen was an employee in the police department.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.