Are We Correct To Use The Word Suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

So, someone is a 'person of interest', then becomes a 'suspect' when more information is available, but what if you have no further information, ever?

Then he stays a person of interest

As a modern policeman your case can't be progressed. But you are not a modern policeman, you are someone looking back over a century or more at a case investigated by somebody else, someone who, for reasons unknown to you, concluded that the person actually was the murderer. The evidence you know is nil, yet you want to classify as a mere 'person of interest' the person who the policeman back then thought was the murderer.

The principle is the same there has to be some real suspicion from 1888 for us to use the term suspect 130 years later if we are reexamining the case and all the evidence. There is nothing other that what MM wrote, and we dont know what that was so we have to air on the side of caution when labelling persons suspects or prime suspects, that why we have such a long list because every tom dick and harry who has a theory on a suspect has come forward over the years and added their suspect name to the list without there being any evidence.

You are in complete ignorance of the facts, so can you tell me what right you have to relegate to a 'person of interest' or worse a suspect believed to be guilty by a policeman who was in full command of the facts?

You are the one who is in ignorance because you cant understand what makes a person of interest differ from a suspect. Yoy keep saying we dont know thats true we dont so until we do we dont go throwing what maybe be false accusations against a dead person.

This isn't about categorizing suspects today, it's about determing the significance of suspects back then.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

We do in fact have some people who were considered legitimate "Suspects" in these cases, because we have named individuals who officials stated might be responsible for the murders. Like Abberlines comments on Chapman, The MM. The accusation that it was Millen. Not just "in connection" with the murders. But its a short list, and so far, not much use in solving the cases.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[harry]

Persons do give a 'blanket' description of suspect,such as,if a crime happens aboard a ship,all crew are suspect.It is of course a wrong description,if it is a crime believed committed by one person.It is also wrong to give a 'blanket' description of suspect to all those persons 'suspected' by police in the ripper killings.In those killings,whatever method is used,no one person was ever a true suspect.Police from that time have stated so,and no further information has surfaced to change that.

[PaulB]

Like I said before a person of interest can then become a suspect before being arrested on suspicion !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So, someone is a 'person of interest', then becomes a 'suspect' when more information is available, but what if you have no further information, ever?

As a modern policeman your case can't be progressed. But you are not a modern policeman, you are someone looking back over a century or more at a case investigated by somebody else, someone who, for reasons unknown to you, concluded that the person actually was the murderer. The evidence you know is nil, yet you want to classify as a mere 'person of interest' the person who the policeman back then thought was the murderer.

You are in complete ignorance of the facts, so can you tell me what right you have to relegate to a 'person of interest' or worse a suspect believed to be guilty by a policeman who was in full command of the facts?

This isn't about categorising suspects today, it's about determing the significance of suspects back then.

[Trevor Marriott]

Again I’d ask Trevor and Harry two questions.

1. What criteria would you employ to decide whether someone is a Suspect or a Person Of Interest?

2. Could you give us a few Persons of Interest and a few Suspect?

99.9% of all those who appear on the ripperology made list of suspects are persons on interest. No need to name names

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

From yesterday's issue of The Detroit News:

"Police have arrested a person of interest in connection with the deaths of three women believed to be the work of a serial killer, Chief James Craig said Friday evening.

The chief identified the arrested man as Deangelo Kenneth Martin.

“The Headquarters Surveillance Unit hit the east side and arrested him at a bus stop,” Craig said.

He was taken into custody at 7:30 p.m. in the area of Seven Mile and Gratiot, police said.

Craig declined to immediately release what evidence officers collected to indicate Martin, 34, could be responsible for the three killings."

It sure seems to me that this "person of interest" is a police suspect.

Whether he is guilty of anything remains to be seen.

As far as I can tell, "person of interest" is just a polite way of saying suspect.

Like I said before a person of interest can then become a suspect before being arrested on suspicion !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

RJ,
Connection with the death,at that stage,could mean a numbr of things.Quite a few persons were arrested during the ripper murders,and were later released.
Interesting though,that the chief used the expression,when he could have used the word suspect.

[rjpalmer]

From yesterday's issue of The Detroit News:

"Police have arrested a person of interest in connection with the deaths of three women believed to be the work of a serial killer, Chief James Craig said Friday evening.

The chief identified the arrested man as Deangelo Kenneth Martin.

“The Headquarters Surveillance Unit hit the east side and arrested him at a bus stop,” Craig said.

He was taken into custody at 7:30 p.m. in the area of Seven Mile and Gratiot, police said.

Craig declined to immediately release what evidence officers collected to indicate Martin, 34, could be responsible for the three killings."

It sure seems to me that this "person of interest" is a police suspect.

Whether he is guilty of anything remains to be seen.

As far as I can tell, "person of interest" is just a polite way of saying suspect.

[harry]

Herlock,
If you read correctly,I referred to Hutchinson as a 'Person of interest' Some times I wonder whether you are serious,or just want an argument.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,
To answer your questions.In studying the crimes one obvious fact is that in every ripper murder the killer had to be in the company of the victim,when the victim was killed.They had to be together in Bucks Row,29 Hanbury St,Dutfield yard,Mitre square,and in the room in Millers Court.As there was no eyewitness to any killing,then anyone known by name to be in the company of a victim shortly before the victim was killed,and persons unknown seen in the company of a victim,shortly before that victim's death.So that leaves 1 known,George Hutchinson,and about 7 unknown.Remember this is my reasoning.As no incriminating evidence is to be had,none of those persons do I class as suspect.All to me are persons of interest.
Of course there has been two confessions,but both to me are questionable,so I discount them.
Now Herlock.I would like you to answer your own two questions.

So you have George Hutchinson as the only person deserving of being called a suspect? Really?

I can answer my own two questions easily.

1. They have to have been suspected by someone.

2. I can give no examples of a POI. Examples of suspects are all of them that have ever been mentioned.

[harry]

Herlock,
To answer your questions.In studying the crimes one obvious fact is that in every ripper murder the killer had to be in the company of the victim,when the victim was killed.They had to be together in Bucks Row,29 Hanbury St,Dutfield yard,Mitre square,and in the room in Millers Court.As there was no eyewitness to any killing,then anyone known by name to be in the company of a victim shortly before the victim was killed,and persons unknown seen in the company of a victim,shortly before that victim's death.So that leaves 1 known,George Hutchinson,and about 7 unknown.Remember this is my reasoning.As no incriminating evidence is to be had,none of those persons do I class as suspect.All to me are persons of interest.
Of course there has been two confessions,but both to me are questionable,so I discount them.
Now Herlock.I would like you to answer your own two questions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again I’d ask Trevor and Harry two questions.

1. What criteria would you employ to decide whether someone is a Suspect or a Person Of Interest?

2. Could you give us a few Persons of Interest and a few Suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do not need to buy your book Monty,plenty of free professional advice to be had on the net.

If that is so Gut,lets all refer to Hutchinson and Cross as suspects.Would everyone agree on that?

Yes, actually I would. Few people have spent more time debating with Fish about Cross/Lechmere than me but he has to be regarded as a suspect because he’s been suspected. I strongly feel that he wasn’t guilty. I could be wrong though.

Lets go to the most ludicrous extremes Harry - Van Gogh, Macnaghten and (perish the thought) Conan Doyle. Are they suspects? In terms of having been suspected then yes they are. Can any weight be added to the claims - of course not. Do we waste any time debating them - of course we don’t. So how does it have any effect what term we employ?

[packers stem]

In terms of the investigation at the time we can't be sure who may or may not have been a suspect at the time .
We know there were lines of enquiry which threw up at least one 'person of interest' ,one being William Magrath, but named suspects only appeared years later .