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:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Sam Flynn 10 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Simon Wood 13 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Scott Nelson 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Scott Nelson 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Varqm 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Darryl Kenyon 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (11 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (11 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (5 posts)
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (4 posts)
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: New Thoughts On The “diary” - (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
  #21  
Old 08-06-2017, 12:40 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Yes and he didn't ignore the situation. He went round to Bucks Row. The question was whether it was his "first duty".
The question to which I responded was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam
How would attending to a drunk woman in Bucks Row involve the protection of life? Or a dead woman for that matter!
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-06-2017, 12:46 PM
Flower and Dean Flower and Dean is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 51
Default

I agree with people who have said leaving one's beat would have been allowed in case of emergency. That sounds like part of the purpose, not just to watch for trouble but to be easy to find by people to intervene in emergencies nearby.

Can someone point me to the source(s) for Mizen continuing knocking up even after he was called? I can't find that, only his claims that he didn't continue doing that.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-06-2017, 12:56 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The question to which I responded was:
Yes, I know, and my question was in response to this statement:

"If, in fact, Lechmere & Paul simply told him of a woman either dead or drunk on Bucks Row (as was claimed) he would have failed in the first duty of a police officer - the protection of life."

And your answer didn't actually meet the point. You said "A drunk woman sparked out on the pavement might need help". That's different from the protection of life.

You also said a dead body would need to be officially dealt with. That, again, is different from the protection of life.

So perhaps I should repeat the question:

How would attending to a drunk woman in Bucks Row involve the protection of life? Or a dead woman for that matter!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-06-2017, 01:03 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower and Dean View Post
I agree with people who have said leaving one's beat would have been allowed in case of emergency. That sounds like part of the purpose, not just to watch for trouble but to be easy to find by people to intervene in emergencies nearby.

Can someone point me to the source(s) for Mizen continuing knocking up even after he was called? I can't find that, only his claims that he didn't continue doing that.
Here's what I posted in another thread:

As for what Mizen did do, Reporter G seems to carry the fullest account of his evidence on this point, namely: "In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking people up at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck’s-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else".

Reporter B corroborates this: "The witness was at the time in the act of knocking a man up….It is not true that before he went to Buck’s-row, witness continued “knocking people up”. He went there immediately".

Reporter C also carries a shorter version of this: "A juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you were wanted? Witness – No. I only finished knocking up one person".


Reporter G is Daily Chronicle, B is the Star and C is the Daily News.

In short, Mizen admitted that he did continue to knock up after speaking to Paul and Cross but only at one residence.
__________________
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-06-2017, 01:06 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Yes, I know, and my question was in response to this statement:
David, you must have picked more nits than a mangy chimpanzee. I'm not going to indulge you, sorry.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-06-2017, 01:22 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
David, you must have picked more nits than a mangy chimpanzee. I'm not going to indulge you, sorry.
I never wanted to be "indulged". I asked a question of Bridewell back in 2014. This thread had died. Suddenly in 2017 you claimed to have answered my question but hadn't done so. I simply pointed out that you hadn't done so. I'm not the one nitpicking.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-06-2017, 01:39 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,507
Default

If Cross/Paul said to Mizen, 'you are wanted in Bucks Row, a woman is lying either dead or drunk in the street', Constable Mizen may have thought they meant another constable wanted help. Whereas the two witnesses only meant his attention was wanted.
That being the case then Mizen may not have felt an urgency to get to Bucks Row, if another constable was already on the scene.

It all depends on what Mizen believed he was being told.

I did read somewhere that beat constables were often paid to knock people up for work, it wasn't done for free.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 08-06-2017 at 01:41 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-06-2017, 01:47 PM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower and Dean View Post
Can someone point me to the source(s) for Mizen continuing knocking up even after he was called? I can't find that, only his claims that he didn't continue doing that.
The source is chiefly the 'remarkable statement' given by Robert Paul to Lloyds Weekly 2nd Sept., in which he says that after he and Cross found the body;

"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-06-2017, 02:48 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
If Cross/Paul said to Mizen, 'you are wanted in Bucks Row, a woman is lying either dead or drunk in the street', Constable Mizen may have thought they meant another constable wanted help. Whereas the two witnesses only meant his attention was wanted.
That being the case then Mizen may not have felt an urgency to get to Bucks Row, if another constable was already on the scene.

It all depends on what Mizen believed he was being told.

I did read somewhere that beat constables were often paid to knock people up for work, it wasn't done for free.
Hi Jon,

I must admit that I've always been under the impression that 'knocking up' wasn't legit and that police officers were paid for it?

Ive also suspected, though we have no way of knowing for sure, that if CL and Paul had said 'you're wanted in Bucks Row,' they could simply have meant 'your presence is required in Bucks Row.' Then Mizen on arriving there saw PC Neil then got a bit mixed up and thought that they'd said 'you're wanted by a Constable' when making his statement. It has to be a possibility at least.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-06-2017, 07:48 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,811
Default

Any law enforcement officer on a beat had a responsibility to the citizens on his beat,in addition to his responsibilities as dictated by the police force.It was one reason police wore uniforms,to be easily recognisable as such,so that a member of the public,if there was a problem,could get help.In this case Mizen was responding to members of the public,not to his superiors.His decision to leave his beat therefor,in my opinion,means he (Mizen)believed he would not be in breach of duties if he responded by going to Buck Row.The only fault ,if there is one,is did Mizen delay longer than he should have.
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 12:02 PM.


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