Are We Correct To Use The Word Suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick S]

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".

[Sam Flynn]

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.

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

You're not going to convict anyone at all, Trevor. There's insifficient evidence to convict anyone and no one alive to convict, so the very best you can hope to do is assess the evidence against those who were suspected at the time (and, if you wish to, those who have been suspected since), and that means the people against whom suspicion was voiced by those best placed to have full command of the facts - Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten, Littlechild... Your problem is whilst they may be giving no more than an opinion, it is reasonable to suppose (unless you have good evidence to the contrary) that their opinion was based on evidence, but you don't know what that evidence was, so you can't assess it, which means you can't determine whether it was good or bad, which means you can't catagorise the suspected person as a 'person of interest' or a 'suspect'. Trying to assess a source who'se been dead for maybe over a century, who was making a bald statement of fact, who expected to be believed, and who was not giving testimony under questioning, is a world away from gathering evidence that could convict anyone.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

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

You're not going to convict anyone at all, Trevor. There's insifficient evidence to convict anyone and no one alive to convict, so the very best you can hope to do is assess the evidence against those who were suspected at the time (and, if you wish to, those who have been suspected since), and that means the people against whom suspicion was voiced by those best placed to have full command of the facts - Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten, Littlechild... Your problem is whilst they may be giving no more than an opinion, it is reasonable to suppose (unless you have good evidence to the contrary) that their opinion was based on evidence, but you don't know what that evidence was, so you can't assess it, which means you can't determine whether it was good or bad, which means you can't catagorise the suspected person as a 'person of interest' or a 'suspect'. Trying to assess a source who'se been dead for maybe over a century, who was making a bald statement of fact, who expected to be believed, and who was not giving testimony under questioning, is a world away from gathering evidence that could convict anyone.

[Harry D]

It's just common parlance.

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry, I have to ask you three questions:

1. Do you accept the we are not conducting a police investigation?

2. How would you define a suspect in regard to the people that we are looking at? ( or, what makes a suspect a suspect?)

3. In what way would things be improved if we adopted your’s and Trevor’s definition or the phrase Person Of Interest instead of suspect?

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

"I’m hoping that we don’t get side tracked by the merits or non-merits of Druitt"...

You’re absolutely right Martyn I said the same in my opening post. The subject at hand is the use of the word suspect.

[mpriestnall]

"I’m hoping that we don’t get side tracked by the merits or non-merits of Druitt"...

[Herlock Sholmes]

And how do you distinguish a 'person of interest' and a 'suspect' when you have no idea what the evidence is? [The evidence again Druitt, for example, could have been solid gold, or it could have been garbage, but you don't know which, so how do you label someone according to the quality of the evidence against them, when you don't know what the evidence was? How can you say Druitt was a POI without judging Macnaghten's evidence, which, of course, you don't know and therefore can't judge?]

Good point Paul. Do we simply dismiss the words of the second most senior police officer in the Met as if he was a known liar or a gullible idiot? Apparently so for some.

[PaulB]

Harry, I have to ask you three questions:

1. Do you accept the we are not conducting a police investigation?

2. How would you define a suspect in regard to the people that we are looking at? ( or, what makes a suspect a suspect?)

3. In what way would things be improved if we adopted your’s and Trevor’s definition or the phrase Person Of Interest instead of suspect?

And how do you distinguish a 'person of interest' and a 'suspect' when you have no idea what the evidence is? [The evidence again Druitt, for example, could have been solid gold, or it could have been garbage, but you don't know which, so how do you label someone according to the quality of the evidence against them, when you don't know what the evidence was? How can you say Druitt was a POI without judging Macnaghten's evidence, which, of course, you don't know and therefore can't judge?]

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gut,
Well it would prevent persons known only to have been in the immediate vicinity from being labelled suspects,plus it would put the onus on present and later accusers to submit better and stronger evidence,especially where the evidence is simply suspicion.
Here in Australia and in the UK it is used.

Specifically Druitt of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The one big lie,of course,is that police officers of 1888,did not know and use the terminology of today.They did use and know what the term 'Suspect' meant,and that is the only term that is being contested.They also knew what the term 'Proof' meant. Collectively police are known to have stated neither could be used against anyone in respect of the Whitechapel murders.
So Trevor and I are sticking to facts,not resorting to lies.
In between 1888 and now,the term 'Person of interest' came into use.It is a description that is used extensively today by police forces.Generally it is used in situations where evidence may point in a certain direction,but is insufficient or of such low quality,that that the term 'Suspect' cannot/should not be applied.
Retaining something because it was once the norm,is a weak arguement.Even the way historical investigation is used changes,as more and better methods become apparent.
So a change to,'Person of interest',is,i believe,a good way to go.

Harry, I have to ask you three questions:

1. Do you accept the we are not conducting a police investigation?

2. How would you define a suspect in regard to the people that we are looking at? ( or, what makes a suspect a suspect?)

3. In what way would things be improved if we adopted your’s and Trevor’s definition or the phrase Person Of Interest instead of suspect?

[harry]

Gut,
It is a general term(Person of interest) now, used by many law enforcement agencies and the media.Had I been asked the question you posed,i would have answered either yes or no,depending on the information I possessed.There would have been no need for another term.In practice,to me there were only two possible states.Either a person was a suspect or he wasn't.That didn't rule out a third possibility,but your question didn't ask for one.

[Trevor Marriott]

person of interest can also be used to refer to a, unknown, potential witness in police CoPs entries (CoPs is, in NSW, their computerised notebooks).

No that person would be referred to as a potential witness, which is what you have described, not a person on interest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk