Are We Correct To Use The Word Suspect?

[GUT]

I’d have said they were upper middle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock, and I agree with the point that you make.

It's also worth mentioning that direct evidence is not required to secure a conviction, let alone to designate someone as a suspect.

Thus, in Exall (1866) Pollock CB defined circumstantial evidence thus:

"It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain, and each piece of evidence is a link in the chain, but that is not so, for then if any one link breaks, the chain would fail. It is more like the case of a rope composed of several chords. One strand of chord may be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength. Thus it may be in circumstantial evidence- there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion; but taken together may create a conclusion of guilt with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of."

Now we do not know if there was circumstantial evidence against Druitt or, if there was, whether it was significant. However, reading this thread I am impressed with the arguments regarding Druitt's family.

For instance, we know that the police received information regarding suspicions held against Druitt, as well as Macnaghten privately. We might reasonsbly infer that this information originated from a family member, or someone close to the family, particularly as Macnaghten states that he was in no doubt that family members considered him to have been the murderer.

Now in the Victorian era reputation was everything, particularly to a middle class family like the Druitt's. It's therefore difficult to imagine a family member, let alone several family members, would raise a suspicion, let alone make accusations, of murder, against a fellow family member, unless they believed they had substantive evidence, because quite simply, any mere whiff of suspicion, entering the public realm, that a family member could have committed such diabolic crimes would presumably have been ruinous for the family.

Another point on terminology. I’ve posted in the past saying that Druitt’s was from the Upper Classes but you’ve just called his family middle class. It made me stop and think. Maybe upper class is pushing it a little and maybe middle class might include respectable tradesmen? Would Upper Middle Class be more accurate? I’m unsure. Not that it’s important of course.

I do agree with the emboldened part above though and it’s point I’ve raised in the past. It’s unthinkable that a family member would make something like that up but it’s also unlikely in the extreme, I’d have thought, for them to have given voice to such a suspicion if they didn’t feel that they’d had good reason. Of course the possibility that they might have been mistaken exists but it wouldn’t have been a decision taken at all lightly. And so unless Macnaghten was simply making it up when he spoke about the family (something for which we have no evidence) we have a family who genuinely believed that one of their own was Jack the Ripper. Of course we have no evidence because it no longer exists but Macnaghten said that it did previously exist (again, unless he was lying of course.)

So, if Mac was telling the truth we have a man believed to have been the ripper by his own family and that some form of evidence for this at one time existed. His death accounts for the cessation of the murders (unless you believe Mackenzie a victim of course) We can find no circumstance, event or physical incapacity that precludes him. He was physically fit and his appearance is a very reasonable fit for some potential sightings. We might even add that if the ripper did have anatomical knowledge then the son of a surgeon might easily have gained this knowledge either from books or from a father that may have wanted him to follow in the family tradition. He lived out of the area but not too far. He had a family member who did charitable work in the East End so, as was stated by the priest, he might have spent at least some time amongst the fallen women. His sacking at the school might or might not have had some connection to the murders. HL Fleet said that there was a rumour at the time of the murders that the killer lived in Blackheath, as did Druitt. Then we have his Uncle Robert dictating his memoirs but he halted them just after Kelly’s murder and then restarted them in 1894 with a mysterious comment about things that he hoped people wouldn’t find out about.

To partially quote RJ Palmer “how can people be so incurious?” I certainly am.

At the very least I’d say that there’s enough surrounding to Druitt to make him a very interesting suspect. As I’ve said before I have no problem if someone feels that he’s a weak suspect but I can’t see why there’s such a strenuous effort to dismiss him completely.

[John G]

Good points John. It’s also the case that a strong suspect can turn out to be completely innocent and yet someone that was only a person of interest might turn out to be guilty.

Thanks Herlock, and I agree with the point that you make.

It's also worth mentioning that direct evidence is not required to secure a conviction, let alone to designate someone as a suspect.

Thus, in Exall (1866) Pollock CB defined circumstantial evidence thus:

"It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain, and each piece of evidence is a link in the chain, but that is not so, for then if any one link breaks, the chain would fail. It is more like the case of a rope composed of several chords. One strand of chord may be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength. Thus it may be in circumstantial evidence- there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion; but taken together may create a conclusion of guilt with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of."

Now we do not know if there was circumstantial evidence against Druitt or, if there was, whether it was significant. However, reading this thread I am impressed with the arguments regarding Druitt's family.

For instance, we know that the police received information regarding suspicions held against Druitt, as well as Macnaghten privately. We might reasonsbly infer that this information originated from a family member, or someone close to the family, particularly as Macnaghten states that he was in no doubt that family members considered him to have been the murderer.

Now in the Victorian era reputation was everything, particularly to a middle class family like the Druitt's. It's therefore difficult to imagine a family member, let alone several family members, would raise a suspicion, let alone make accusations, of murder, against a fellow family member, unless they believed they had substantive evidence, because quite simply, any mere whiff of suspicion, entering the public realm, that a family member could have committed such diabolic crimes would presumably have been ruinous for the family.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At this point it might be worth pointing out that there still appears to be only 2 people who strongly feel that we should use the police jargon definition of suspect whilst there appears to be 14 who believe that we should use the dictionary definition.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, otherwise you just get involved in a pedantic semantic argument, which serves no purpose. Put simply, even in the context of crime there are no definitions of what constitutes a suspect based upon objective criteria: guidlines, statute, case law, police regulations etc. Therefore, as I've argued before, if the police identify someone as a suspect, then they're a suspect, regardless of what evidence there is against them.

It's also worth noting that there have been cases of individuals being suspected, arrested, charged, committed for trial, found guilty and sentenced based upon weak, flawed or practicality non existent evidence. We tend to refer to these cases as miscarriages of justice.

Good points John. It’s also the case that a strong suspect can turn out to be completely innocent and yet someone that was only a person of interest might turn out to be guilty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The difference is as I keep saying there is circumstantial evidence against Feigenbaum and to support what Lawtons says, there is sweet fa against Druitt. Feigenabaum warrants being called a suspect on that basis.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No there’s not. You cannot even prove that he was in the country at the time of the murders. Lawton’s statement is completely uncorroborated so why should we trust that Feigenbaum said what Lawton alleged but disbelieve Macnaghten? Why should we denigrate Mac's source when we cannot be certain who that source was and yet believe Lawton’s source who was a compulsive liar about to be hanged? This is complete and utter bias.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I always use quotations when writing "suspect" unless I'm referencing someone who was a contemporary suspect. It's a personal preference, one I certainly do not require of anyone else. Ultimately, those of us who discuss these topics often and have read and researched the events and actors to any extent, know what's meant when someone applies the term.

I will say that - because of the Kosminski DNA business and an increase in publicity of late - more people with less than a passing interest have broached the topic with me and they take the term "suspect" far more seriously... at least in my observation. I find myself having to explain how easily one can become a "suspect" and how they shouldn't put much stock when hearing the term applied within "Ripperology".

Good points Pat.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Doesn't that basically describe your situation, though, Trevor? I mean, you're a - former - police officer who suspects Feigenbaum based on hearsay evidence. Not that I'm having a go, and I mean that. I have no issue with calling Feigenbaum or Druitt a suspect, because they have both been suspected as the killer.

No it’s completely different Sam. You cannot apply the same constraints on Trevor that apply so rigidly to the rest of us.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one is trying to convict anyone !
We are all trying to find the identity of the killer or killers using what evidence we have available to us, that does not include the use of wild speculation as to what evidence there may or may not have been against Druiit or anyone else for that matter. The reality is that there is none against Druitt only an opinion of a police officer based on hearsay evidence years after the murders ceased.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Firstly, we’re not talking specifically about Druitt but about general principals about the usage of the term. A point that really should never have required making in the first place except for your efforts to somehow demote Druitt as a candidate.

And secondly, it’s tiresome to constantly hear you banging on about hearsay evidence whilst promoting the uncorroborated claims of an American Lawyer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's just common parlance.

I mean technically Lewis Carroll is a Ripper suspect but no one actually takes that guff seriously.

Exactly Harry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Although this is not a police investigation it is sill an investigation albeit a cold case investigation. and as such must be investigated in the same way as it would if it were a police cold case investigation, After all what do you do, exactly the same, assess and evaluate the evidence which is before you, Not speculate on what is not before you, or maybe nothing more than hearsay. No one has ever been convicted on the sole evidence of someone giving an opinion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why must it??

We are never going to convict anyone??

Its easily understandable why the police need to be more stringent during an investigation when discussing suspects. They have issues like time, manpower, resources and the possibility of further crimes taking place to take into consideration making it vital to focus their efforts. We have no such constraints. Therefore we have no requirement to be rigid in our use of terminology. It’s very simple.

[Ginger]

There are any number of terms which, to a professional working in a given field, convey shades of meaning which are missed by those outside of the field. From my perspective as a layman, if an investigator of whatever standing thinks someone may have committed the crime, then he's a "suspect".

Note that not all investigators are not equal. If a respected senior detective publicly calls someone a suspect, then that equates to "probably guilty, although not yet proven" in my mind, all legal niceties aside. Police detectives operate to rather higher standards of evidence than normal people. If someone from a website like this calls someone a suspect, then I'm going to look at their argument and evidence, and see if I agree that there's at least some reason, however weak, to think that person may have done it. If someone on a cold case website speaks of a POI, then I'm going to wonder exactly what they mean - a suspect, a witness, etc.

[John G]

Yes, otherwise you just get involved in a pedantic semantic argument, which serves no purpose. Put simply, even in the context of crime there are no definitions of what constitutes a suspect based upon objective criteria: guidlines, statute, case law, police regulations etc. Therefore, as I've argued before, if the police identify someone as a suspect, then they're a suspect, regardless of what evidence there is against them.

It's also worth noting that there have been cases of individuals being suspected, arrested, charged, committed for trial, found guilty and sentenced based upon weak, flawed or practicality non existent evidence. We tend to refer to these cases as miscarriages of justice.

[PaulB]

The difference is as I keep saying there is circumstantial evidence against Feigenbaum and to support what Lawtons says, there is sweet fa against Druitt. Feigenabaum warrants being called a suspect on that basis.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But you don't know there was 'sweet fa' against Druitt. All you know is that you don't know whether there was any evidence against him or not.

[PaulB]

No one is trying to convict anyone !
We are all trying to find the identity of the killer or killers using what evidence we have available to us, that does not include the use of wild speculation as to what evidence there may or may not have been against Druiit or anyone else for that matter. The reality is that there is none against Druitt only an opinion of a police officer based on hearsay evidence years after the murders ceased.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If 'no one is trying to convict anyone' why did you write, 'No one has ever been convicted on the sole evidence of someone giving an opinion', especially when your frequently expressed opinion is that Macnaghten was only offering an opinion, which being uncorroborated is in your view worthless and wouldn't convict anyone?

Who is speculating about what evidence there may or may not have been against Druitt? The only person I can see doing that is you. I have been stating over and over again that we don't know what evidence Macnaghten had against Druitt and therefore can't assess it and offer an opinion about whether it was good or bad. On the other hand, you repeatedly say, and say in your post, 'there is none against Druitt'. You know no more about Macnaghten's evidence than I do, yet you feel able to say he didn't have any!

What really seems to be the case, Trevor, is that because there is no evidence known to you, you assume that there wasn't any evidence known to Macnaghten.

But the point you still haven't addressed is that in order to classify someone like Druitt (or whoever) a 'person of interest' or a 'suspect' you need to have assessed the evidence, which means that you must know what that evidence was. You don't know what it was, ergo you can't meaningfully classify him.