Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Simon Wood 33 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 42 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by rjpalmer 1 hour and 12 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (30 posts)
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - (10 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (8 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Joseph Isaacs - (4 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > General Police Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #141  
Old 09-04-2017, 01:18 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
No, I am not wrong about this. I have repeatedly brought to your attention The Code's requirement that an officer take particulars in a criminal case or an accident.
And as I have said to you repeatedly, the Code could not possibly, and did not, require officers to be psychic or have superhuman powers of hindsight.

You are only confusing yourself with your constant mention of "strict liability" which is why you are ending up in a logical cul de sac.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 09-04-2017, 01:21 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
No, I am not wrong about this. I have repeatedly brought to your attention The Code's requirement that an officer take particulars in a criminal case or an accident. And the Nichols' case was a criminal case. The question therefore was whether The Code imposed strict liability-and I have explained what strict liability means in legal terms. You may be also interested to know that the current solicitors' Code of Conduct imposes strict liability: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysi.../54784.article

What I would argue is that an officer would be expected to exercise his judgment sensibly. As regards, PC Duffin I'm not sure he did do the right thing. I think it could be argued he should have interrogated the man-I mean, he'd have looked pretty stupid if it turned out she'd been mugged! However, I suppose he was put in a difficult position when the man claimed to be the woman's husband- a claim he presumably had no reason to question- and then stated he was going to fetch a doctor, highlighting the possible seriousness of the situation.
So Mizen should have taken out his little drone and sent it flying over Polly Nichols in Buck“s Row. And Duffin should have taken out his little x-ray and put it on Byrne.

You know what, John. In 1888 the had to just use their own senses.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 09-04-2017, 01:24 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curious View Post
You're probably a better judge of that than I.

Would she have a small income or pension from that?

curious
She may well have done. And if she had a window's pension, might she not lose that entitlement if she remarried? In fact, she must have been relatively well off, considering she had £2 10s in gold on her person, as well as a gold watch and chain. And wasn't her father an officer? I wonder how that would have impacted on her class status!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 09-04-2017, 01:40 PM
curious curious is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
She may well have done. And if she had a window's pension, might she not lose that entitlement if she remarried? In fact, she must have been relatively well off, considering she had £2 10s in gold on her person, as well as a gold watch and chain. And wasn't her father an officer? I wonder how that would have impacted on her class status!

Well, if her father had been an officer and she married a non-com, wouldn't she have married down?

And that might indicate a somewhat rebellious nature, right? A woman who did not live strictly by the rules?

curious
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 09-04-2017, 01:43 PM
Pcdunn Pcdunn is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,651
Default Dancing in new boots?

Quote:
Originally Posted by curious View Post

See, that was one of my questions: did clubs for people of both genders exist there in Blackfriars at the time? That was what I meant I needed to research. While the extra pair of shoes and no luggage for an overnight says "dancing" to me, I have no idea if such places existed. On the other hand, during Prohibition here in the States, when things were very much stricter than they are today, speakeasies were certainly available for people to attend.

curious
I just don't buy the dancing club explanation. An earlier post quotes contemporary evidence that the boots in the parcel were "new", which suggests they were a purchase for either Georgina or her sister.

You said you liked dancing, Curious-- ever go dancing in new shoes fresh from the manufacturer?

Let's see what facts we know about Mrs. Bryne:
-- She's the widow of a non-commissioned army officer, with a young son.
-- The boy is with her parents, presumably while she was working.
-- Work for women in Victorian times was limited, according to some research I did last night, so she might have been in a factory or a shop as a saleslady. Either would fit with the respectable options for middle-class women.
-- Her employer confirmed she had left work for the day.
-- Her father didn't know why she was traveling to London, but assumed it was to visit her sister.
-- She had some money, the parcel of shoes, and a umbrella with her when she collapsed on the street.
-- We don't know why she was walking at night, possibly alone, without other luggage, and with money to hire a cab or carriage.
-- We don't know who the well-dressed man was, or if he was really her "husband", but it seems to be a lie, given that her family knew nothing of him.
-- Could the man have been a thief, con-man, or pickpocket? Certainly, and the papers suggested as much, since one story said something along the lines that she might have been robbed of everything if the police hadn't come along when they did.

Conclusion: We don't know everything, but it could have been attempted robbery.
__________________
Pat D.
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 09-04-2017, 02:45 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
No, I am not wrong about this. I have repeatedly brought to your attention The Code's requirement that an officer take particulars in a criminal case or an accident. And the Nichols' case was a criminal case.
Hi John,

I'm no expert on this and I haven't read the Police Code (maybe I should) but surely the point is that whether Mizen had been told that Nichols was dead or drunk he had no way of knowing at the time that a crime, or indeed an accident, had occurred. For all he knew at the time Nichols could have just collapsed (like Mrs Byrne.)
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 09-04-2017, 04:13 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 970
Default

>>The point that David was making on discovering and posting this incident was that Mizen has been criticised for allowing CL and Paul to go on their way without taking their details. <<

Of course, the circumstances are very different between the two incidents.

Mizen was engaged in a duty (knocking up) and was requested to, not only, leave his beat, but cease his lawful duty and enter another police division's jurisdiction by two, arguable suspicious characters.

In this case, Duffin came upon an incident that was on his beat, in a crowded street. The one person allowed to leave in search of help had voluntarily identified himself, albeit falsely.
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 09-04-2017, 06:43 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,769
Default

Duffin was aware that Byrne was still alive,that she appeared to need medical help.His duty and attention was to the woman.He put this duty first.No fault there.There was no signs of violence,and the two persons with her appeared to be helping,so no need for Duffin to be suspicious.
Duffin appears to have submitted a full report of his involvement that same evening.
Two things I am not sure of.Did the man mention husband or was he misinterpreted.Did he in fact go to find a doctor?
Who summond the transport to take Byrne to Hospital?
There were ,on average,hundreds of deaths each week in London.I'm sure the police attended on many occasions,and many at first appeared strange.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 09-04-2017, 11:58 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 970
Default

>>Here we have an officer who literally finds two men standing over the body of a woman lying on the pavement in the dark. <<

But these "two" were merely part of an, apperantly, large crowd.

>>At least one of the men, possibly both, leave the crime scene, with one of the men telling a direct lie in order to provide an excuse to leave. The officer, apparently, takes no details of the men.

All seems eerily familiar to me.<<


Because the circumstances are so vastly different, for me at least, I see no real connection.
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman

Last edited by drstrange169 : 09-05-2017 at 12:16 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 09-05-2017, 12:05 AM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 970
Default

>>... for Mizen. The body lying on the ground wasn't reported to him as a criminal case or accident so he couldn't possibly have known it would turn out to be a murder.<<

Mizen, didn't even know whether there was a body or not, he took the word of two passing strangers on faith, whereas Duffin was confronted with a prone woman and a crowd of people, one of whom identified himself and went to allegedly seek help, leaving his "wife" in the care of the officer.
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.