The story of the police, which even firearms do not give out.
It is always funny to watch British movies, where their policemen, weapons bases, chase armed criminals and get ... lyuly.)
It turns out that the Chief Constable himself said after the murder of several officers, including women, that "It is expensive to teach our police officers how to use a weapon." It is a lot of money to spend .....
Jurgen Torvald. From the history of Scotland Yard.
If by this time Paris Syurte had its eighty-year history and its traditions, then Scotland Yard could not boast of it. In 1829, the first London police commissioners, Mine and Rowan, occupied the bureau in several old buildings that once belonged to the Whitehall Palace.
Later, the London police occupied a complex of buildings where Scottish kings used to stay when visiting the London courtyard, Scotland Yard (Scottish courtyard).Hence the name of the English criminal police - Scotland Yard.
The fact that the English police is younger than the French has its own reasons. The exaggeratedly painful ideas of civil liberties of the British, seeming to many foreign observers, naturally led to the fact that the British public, until then, saw any kind of police as a threat to these freedoms, until in the 1930s, Londoners literally drowned in a swamp of crimes, violence and lawlessness.
Because of this understanding of civil liberties, England for centuries had neither public prosecutors nor a real police force. Maintaining order and the protection of property were considered a matter for the citizens themselves.
Perhaps this point of view was justifying itself, as long as citizens had the opportunity not only to assume the role of magistrates for free, but also to carry out police service. But no one else wanted to do this thing.
The British preferred to hire someone for these roles for money. We hired those who are cheaper: disabled, half-blind, vagrants, often even thieves. And numerous magistrates used their position to make money by bribing and hiding.
Vidocs in England was not. The inevitable conflict with crime gave rise to even more undesirable figures: scammers and clandestine detectives - voluntary detectives for the sake of profit, revenge, or for the love of adventure.
When a thief was captured and convicted, they received remuneration from the amount of a fine, and in homicide or robbery cases - a reward in the form of a bonus.
Everyone could assume the role of a scammer, detain a criminal, lead him to a magistrate and accuse him. If this led to a conviction, then he received his reward, which often caused the revenge of accomplices of the convict.
Everyone could take on the role of a secret detective and bring brigands, burglars and murderers to court. It was believed that all necessary measures had been taken if the criminals carried cruel punishments (for the commission of almost two hundred, for the most part non-dangerous crimes, the punishment was a death sentence). Prisons were only forwarding points on the way to the gallows or exile.
Forty pounds, weapons and property of the convict - this is the fee of the state and the community for the capture of the thief. These "bloody money" was a great temptation for all sorts of strange "detectives", and the result was highly developed corruption.
Undercover detectives pushed the young people to the crime and dragged them to court in order to get “blood money”. They openly offered their services for the return of stolen property for the payment of a premium in the amount of the value of stolen property.
The prize, of course, they had to share with the thieves, if they did not commit theft themselves. The latter happened quite often. The most famous representative of such "detectives" Jonathan Wild was a crook and a street robber, the organizer of the underworld of London, the predecessor of the later gangster bosses of North America.
"The secret detective, the general of Great Britain and Ireland," was what Wild called himself. He always carried a cane with a golden crown, owned an office in London and had a villa with a large staff of servants. Wild put on trial and sent to the gallows about a hundred street thieves, but only those who did not want to obey him. In 1725, Wild himself was hanged in Tiburn for robbery.
Only 25 years later did one of the London magistrates in the world seriously oppose lawlessness, which was taking on increasing proportions. This was the writer Henry Fielding. He wrote a pamphlet on Jonathan Wild.
Fielding was seriously ill, but he had great willpower. As Justice of the Peace of Westminster, he watched helplessly as a wave of crime rose. However, he was able to prove to the Minister of the Interior that London was becoming a disgrace to the civilized world, being the only city in all the land where there is no police.
Fielding was released from the Secret Service fund to pay for a dozen of his assistants. He supplied them with red vests, under which they wore pistols. Since Fielding’s court was located on Bow Street, his people were called bow street runners, that is, police officers from Bow Street.
And suddenly they were, apparently, the first criminologists in the world. Fielding paid them one guinea a week. But every citizen who needed security, or who wanted to investigate a crime, could get a policeman for one guinea a day. Fifteen minutes later they were ready to begin their duties.
Their methods did not differ much from the methods of Vidoc. Having changed clothes, they visited dens, had paid filelers, tried to memorize faces, were able to track down patiently, were assertive and courageous.
They were successful, and some even became famous. The most famous was Peter Townsend, who at one time served as a secret guard at King George IV. The annals of history also include the names: Joseph Atkin, Vikkeri, Ruthven, and Sayer.
How the bow street drivers made significant fortunes (Townsend left 20,000, Sayer - 30,000 pounds sterling), history is silent. Meanwhile, it is not a secret that they had in common with Jonathan Wild.
Robber bankers refused to pursue the robbers. They used the bow street runners to get the stolen property back for a high reward (for the police and the robbers).
Bankers preferred to return at least part of the stolen property than to ever see a thief before a court, but not to see more stolen property. The police also received “blood money” wherever they could. Some of them did not disdain the fact that they “convicted” innocent people before the court if the guilty ones paid them well.
But at a time when no one could be sure about the safety of his life and property, even such corrupt bow street runners were better than nothing.And Henry Fielding with such policemen achieved great success at that time.
He achieved this success not only because he, like Vidocq, kept a register of criminals known to him. When searching for robbers, murderers and thieves, Fielding corresponded with other magistrates of the peace, published lists and signs of wanted criminals in the newspapers in England.
When Henry Fielding died in 1754, his stepbrother, John, became the police chief. He was blind. History, or perhaps legend, tells us that by the end of his life (John died in 1780) he could distinguish 3,000 criminals by their voices.
John Fielding created armed bow-street patrols and horse patrols that were supposed to patrol highways. Mounted police, however, did not last long, because Fielding did not have enough money to maintain it.
But the bow-street runners existed for a very long time. For ninety years they were the only London criminologists. Their number never exceeded fifteen, and therefore their role in the fight against increasing crime was very small.
In 1828, in London, there were entire areas where they were robbed even in the daytime.There were one criminal per 822 inhabitants. 30,000 people existed solely through robbery and theft. The situation was so serious that Interior Minister Robert Peel finally decided to create a police force contrary to public opinion.
He had to endure a fierce battle in the lower house of parliament. But on December 7, 1829, a thousand policemen in blue tails and gray linen trousers with black cylinders on their heads proceeded to their police stations located throughout the city.
Cylinders had to demonstrate to Londoners that it was not the soldiers, but the citizens who took over their protection. Yet gloomy nicknames, such as Peeler, Copper or Bobby, have survived to this day.
Police Peel eventually ensured external security on the streets of London. But after a few years, it became clear that the security police, who wore a police uniform and operated officially, were unable to actually overcome crime, much less solve a crime already committed. It only seemed that the wave of crimes had subsided.
Robbers, thieves and murderers were now doing their dirty deed secretly. Crime spread from their shelters, taking thousands of very different forms.Only a handful of street shooters struggled with criminals, a very battered one, amazed as never before by corruption, which became the object of ridicule for journalists and cartoonists.
It took several particularly brutal killings to the Minister of the Interior in 1842 had the courage to take another step. 12 police officers took off their uniforms and became detectives. They occupied three small rooms in Scotland Yard.
Some of them enjoyed great prestige (Field, Smith, Jonathan Wicher). The writer Charles Dickens perpetuated their activities. In 1850, he wrote the first significant English crime novel "Cold House".
In his main character, detective from Scotland Yard, Inspector Bakket, the writer portrayed Inspector Field, who actually lived. For the first time in English literature, the heroes of the novel presented themselves with the words: "I am Bucket, a detective, a police detective, a scout, an investigator." The word "detective" for the criminalist has become a term and has spread throughout the world.
In the practice of solving crimes, at first almost nothing has changed. Payment for the work of new detectives was better, the temptation of corruption - less.But still every citizen could personally hire a detective for himself.
It was a forced concession to English public opinion, infected with suspicion. Didn't frightening rumors come from France? Wasn’t the French criminal police really an institution for spying on citizens?
Such suspicions made detective crime fighting the underworld even harder. These suspicions gave rise to restrictions that were not in France and which benefited only criminals.
Detectives had no right to arrest anyone without sufficient evidence. They were forbidden to persuade anyone to testify, to involve anyone as a witness.
They should warn all suspects that their every statement could be used against them. Not surprisingly, the work of English detectives was less successful than the work of their colleagues in France.
Inspector Jonathan Whicher was the victim of a hostile police opinion when, on July 15, 1860, he was invited to Traubridge in Somersetshire to investigate a murder.
Two weeks before that, on June 29, a three-year-old child was found murdered at Road Hill House.It was the youngest son of factory inspector Samuel Kent, who lived there with his second wife, three children from his first marriage, and three children from a second marriage.
The murdered child Savile was the son of a second marriage, the favorite of Samuel and his wife. At night, Seville disappeared from his crib. He was found in a garden toilet with a slit throat.
The local police, under the leadership of the narcissist and limited superintendent Fauly, were completely impotent. Moreover, Fawley took steps that a few decades later would have seemed to the criminologist incomprehensible, even a violation of the law.
He found a bloody women's shirt among the dirty linen, but did not ensure her safety, and she disappeared. He erased the bloody hand-print from the windowpane, "so that the family members are not afraid." In any case, Fowl arrested a nurse Elizabeth Gow. But Elizabeth was soon released because there was no reason for her arrest.
When Whicher arrived at Traubridge, Fawley met him extremely hostile. He did not say a word to him either about the bloody nightgown or about the handprint. The work of Whicher in his methods and techniques was typical of the first English detectives.
He had no idea of any scientific method of investigation. Wicher owned only three virtues: observation, knowledge of people and the ability to combine. In four days he came to the conclusion that only one person could commit a crime: Samuel Kent’s sixteen-year-old daughter Constance, a child from his first marriage.
Constance hated her stepmother and was offended, believing that she was being bullied and treated badly. Whicher believed that she had killed her stepbrother, the stepmother's pet, in order to take revenge on her.
The night murder, he believed, could hardly have happened without leaving a mark on the girl’s clothes. When Whicher found that one of Constance’s three nightgowns had disappeared without a trace, he demanded her arrest, which caused a storm of public outrage.
A few days later the girl was released. What a cheek to blame a child for killing his helpless brother! What a corrupted mind could invent such an accusation! Whicher has become the target of brutal persecution.
Richard Mayne, one of the commissioners of the London police, immediately dismissed Wicher from work in order to protect the police from public attacks (!).Four years later, in 1864, Constance Kent confessed to the murder of her stepbrother. She really killed him to take revenge on her parents.
In the same year, 1864, however, the public praised one of the first detectives, Dick Tanner, for the successful investigation of the first railway murder in Great Britain.
On July 9, 1864, in a compartment of the North-London Railway, an unknown person killed and threw a seventy-year-old bank employee Briggs out of a train. The killer robbed him, taking away the gold watch with a chain, gold-framed glasses and, very strangely, the hat of the murdered man.
He left his hat in the compartment. For the capture of the perpetrator were appointed high amounts of rewards, published sensational reports in the press. After 11 days, Tanner found a jeweler whose killer exchanged a watch with a chain for another watch.
The box, in which the exchanged watches were packed, brought Tanner to the trail of a German tailor named Franz Muller, who lived in London. The hat found at the crime scene was Muller’s hat, and from his letter to the housewife it became clear that he was on his way to North America aboard the Victoria cruise ship.
On July 20, Dick Tanner, having a warrant for the arrest of Franz Muller in his pocket, along with several witnesses set off on board the steamer City of Manchester. The ship arrived in New York 14 days earlier than the Victoria cruiser.
When the sailboat "Victoria" finally appeared in the port, a boat with curious people floated to meet it, shouting: "How are you, killer Muller? .." On September 16, Tanner brought the prisoner to England, and two months later they hung him. At the last moment, shortly before the execution, he confessed to his crime.
But even such a resounding success did not help the London criminal police to raise their authority. When in 1869, the new police president, Edmund Henderson, took over his post, he said: “Great difficulties lie in the development of the detective system. Many Englishmen look at it with suspicion.
She is completely alien to the habits and feelings of the nation. Detectives are actually working secretly. ”However, it was Henderson who increased the detective department of Scotland Yard to 24 people. He appointed the former assistant assistant Jonathan Wicher, Superintendent Williamson, nicknamed the Philosopher, who made the first attempts to combine the detectives who worked separately and each with their own methods.
Almost fifty years before this, the link of criminals in the colony had to be abandoned. After serving their time in English prisons, they were released. And since no one controlled them, most of them returned to their old "occupations."
Only in 1871, the parliament passed a law providing for the registration of repeat offenders using photographs and a description of their identity. But this registry was soon transferred from Scotland Yard to the Ministry of the Interior, where it lost all practical significance. Then Williamson again made registration at Scotland Yard.
Eight years later, he was able to see the results of his efforts, but here Scotland Yard was hit hard. Three of the oldest and most respected Williamson employees, Michaljon, Druzhkovich and Clark, were exposed as bribe takers.
The scandal in Scotland Yard spawned a new wave of distrust. Faced with the choice to be or not to be, Scotland Yard finally got a solid organizational structure.
He was headed by an amateur innovation attorney Howard Vincent, who hurried to Paris to study the work of Syurte. Vincent took everything that could be borrowed from the French.Soon, from a still scattered group of detectives, he created a forensic investigation unit that determined the face of the future of Scotland Yard.
One of his innovations was also the organization of the supervision of criminals. Following the example of Mas, he began collecting photographs of criminals on a large scale, collected them in albums and sent thirty detectives to Holloway prison three times a week to check if there were any new acquaintances.
Gradually, things went better. How scornfully in England were Scotland Yard is evident from such a case. When Superintendent Williamson asked a stranger who was very similar to a Scotland Yard employee who retired: “We do not know? Did you not work with us?”, He received the answer: “No, thank God, so low I have not dropped yet ... "
In 1884, a new man, James Monroe, who worked for a long time in India in the British police, was appointed to the post of head of the forensic investigation department. He also happened to know the precarious position of Scotland Yard.
From August 6 to November 9, 1888, the crimes of an unknown killer shocked the English public.The killings took place between eleven o'clock in the morning and four in the morning in the areas of Whitechapel, Spightfield and Stapney.
All those killed were prostitutes. For the cruelty with which the crimes were committed, the killer was called Jack the Ripper. The crimes stopped just as unexpectedly as they started, and remained undisclosed.
Of course, the outrage of the London public was logical. But wasn’t indignation supposed to be directed at the public itself? Didn't the Ripper murders show the public from the worst side, where the stubborn integrity of personal freedoms leads (among them, in particular, the uncontrolled freedom of movement of any person and the right to be called by any name)?
Were not the Parisian newspapers right when, with national pride, they sneered that, say, Jack the Ripper in Paris would not have been able to kill for weeks?
In any case, the shadow of the Ripper soared over London when Galton worked in his laboratory on thousands of fingerprints.
In 1892 his book "Fingerprints" was published. And despite the great authority of Galton, it took a whole year for the Ministry of the Interior to pay attention to it.But in 1893 it was still not too late, having adopted the fingerprint system, to begin a decisive battle against crime.