Are We Correct To Use The Word Suspect?

[harry]

Yes Roy,I do keep an open mind.It was you mentioning my name in your post that interested me.Why single me out,when you claim I was one of many?
I haven't read Cullen's book, so I am not one of the ignorant posters influenced by it.I know of Hainsworth,he lives in the same city down under that I do.
What did he prove?

[Abby Normal]

Jon Hainsworth’s book is excellent imo.

isn't his conclusion though that Mcnaughten was protecting the family by intentionally getting details wrong and or accusing Druitt but thought it was someone else? whats the main gist of his theory again?

[Harry D]

I don't know what a mic drop is. Is that an English saying? Did Mick Jagger drop his pants? You tell me.

Roy

an instance of deliberately dropping or tossing aside one's microphone at the end of a performance or speech one considers to have been particularly impressive

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jon Hainsworth’s book is excellent imo.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Harry,

Roy,
What may I ask,have you contributed since 1966,that is groundbreaking?

Groundbreaking? I have contributed nothing groundbreaking. But yes I have contributed. I found info about mortuaries which I posted here and was was used in an article. I have done a survey of both city and country private asylums posted on another forum. I have studied the history of Mitre Square in depth along with other locations in East London going back to medieval times and have contributed in topical discussions.

And I have patiently followed along and learned when such giants in the field as Stewart Evans have been so kind as to share actual documentary evidence and personal viewpoints on Casebook, as well as read all his books and many others. I welcomed Jonathan Hainsworth whom I felt brought a brand new and much needed perspective to the Druitt scenario. Does that mean I necesarily think Montage Druitt is Jack the Ripper. No, of course not.

Because I have certainly been guilty in the past of regurgitating the same calcified dogma that I scold others for doing. But I have tried to get past that. And keep an open mind. Do you, Harry?

Roy

[mpriestnall]

Given the wealth of material available, I find categorizing things a convenient way of giving subject matter context.

For me:

Suspects ...are people named as such by contemporary police officials or documents directly or in directly involved with the case.

Persons of interest ... are people who have some direct link to the case, either via contemporary police or newspaper reports, but are not included in the above.

Modern hypothesis ... people not included in the two above categories, who have subsequently be named as the killer.

Don't most disciplines invent there own set of definitions so everyone is on the same page, so to speak, and isn't that a handy thing to do?

I think these are a good set of definitions. But as someone with their own candidate for jtr with a hope to produce my own book, commerically
Modern Hypothectical Killer" is not as good as a $uspect!

Martyn

[Roy Corduroy]

All this post needs is a mic drop.

I don't know what a mic drop is. Is that an English saying? Did Mick Jagger drop his pants? You tell me.

Roy

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly, and when there is no evidence other than an opinion which appears in a document littered with errors. which if MM was such a wonderful proficient policeman man should not have been there.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Remove the word ‘littered’ then add the word ‘insignificant’ in front of the word ‘errors’ to improve the accuracy your post.

[Harry D]

This thread is an amazing, just amazing conversation taking place. Folks (such as that rare gem "Harry") but many other posters too, vets & newbies, have turned back the clock, to ... what ... 1966 ..., after Tom Cullen stole Dan Farson's briefcase containing the Aberconway version of the Macnaghten Memorandum and published his book. So the harping begins. There's even a photo of Simon in the company of Tom and others. So I guess we're hearing the same carping now as then. Druitt wasn't a doctor, Ostrog was in France at the time ... etc. Nothing has changed.

I can excuse Trevor's ignorance. That's to be expected of course. But everyone else, it's like - "Oh no - Absolutely no research or critical thinking has been done on the Druitt case since 1966, when we developed our ironclad opinions set in stone from which we will not deviate one iota." It's calcified. Just as Jonathan Hainsworth used to argue right here on the forums. Ever heard of him? The gent from down under. Made web posts, wrote articles, actually wrote a book.

Again, I excuse Trevor for simply aping the existing calcified dogma, then claiming it's some new 21st century horseshit. He doesn't know any better, the poor soul.

But the rest of yall. Goodness gracious.

Roy

All this post needs is a mic drop.

[harry]

Roy,
There are degrees of dumbness.I may be dumb,I freely admit it,but not so dumb as those that say I am.What may I ask,have you contributed since 1966,that is groundbreaking? You another that confuse information with evidence?

[Wickerman]

Make way for a Troll Detector!!!!

[Trevor Marriott]

Oops this is in the wrong section. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because it still applies to the general line of dumbness prevailing ever since Trevor arrived here. At least I can say this - his spelling, grammar and punctuation has improved LIGHT YEARS from what it was.

Roy

Thank you for you kind words, but you are pointing the finger of dumbness in the wrong direction. Its yourself and the rest of the minority who make up the numpty faction you should be addressing those comments to.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Roy Corduroy]

Oops this is in the wrong section. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because it still applies to the general line of dumbness prevailing ever since Trevor arrived here. At least I can say this - his spelling, grammar and punctuation has improved LIGHT YEARS from what it was.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

This thread is an amazing, just amazing conversation taking place. Folks (such as that rare gem "Harry") but many other posters too, vets & newbies, have turned back the clock, to ... what ... 1966 ..., after Tom Cullen stole Dan Farson's briefcase containing the Aberconway version of the Macnaghten Memorandum and published his book. So the harping begins. There's even a photo of Simon in the company of Tom and others. So I guess we're hearing the same carping now as then. Druitt wasn't a doctor, Ostrog was in France at the time ... etc. Nothing has changed.

I can excuse Trevor's ignorance. That's to be expected of course. But everyone else, it's like - "Oh no - Absolutely no research or critical thinking has been done on the Druitt case since 1966, when we developed our ironclad opinions set in stone from which we will not deviate one iota." It's calcified. Just as Jonathan Hainsworth used to argue right here on the forums. Ever heard of him? The gent from down under. Made web posts, wrote articles, actually wrote a book.

Again, I excuse Trevor for simply aping the existing calcified dogma, then claiming it's some new 21st century horseshit. He doesn't know any better, the poor soul.

But the rest of yall. Goodness gracious.

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

Can someone tell me what possible difference does it make to us whether we use suspect for anyone suspected as opposed to having suspects and persons of interest?

It makes a difference to those of us who look on this as a cold case review and not a historical fandago, like some seem to be doing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk