Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are We Correct To Use The Word Suspect?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post

    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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      Jon Hainsworthís 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?
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • 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?

        Comment


        • He proved nothing. I apologize for singling you out. Good luck in changing everything over to not use the term suspects.
          Sink the Bismark

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            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?
            Yes Abby thatís it. Macnaghten with the help of his friend George Sims. To protect the Druitt family who were related by marriage to one of Macnaghtenís closest friends Sir Vivian Majendie.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-11-2019, 10:33 AM. Reason: Added information
            Regards

            Herlock






            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              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?
              He posted his theory several times and I still haven't a clue wtf it is.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Yes Abby thatís it. Macnaghten with the help of his friend George Sims. To protect the Druitt family who were related by marriage to one of Macnaghtenís closest friends Sir Vivian Majendie.
                Thanks hs
                but how does it protect the family when he actually named druitt ?
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                  Thanks hs
                  but how does it protect the family when he actually named druitt ?
                  But only in the Memorandum which wasnít for public consumption. Hence the 41 year old doctor. Much is made of these errors of course but it has to be said that when colleagues and friends are complimenting Macnaghten one thing they all seemed to point out was his remarkable memory for details.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                  Comment


                  • Roy,
                    My intention is not to change the meaning of the word suspect,only that it be used in it's proper place.
                    For instance.Cross/Lechmere is considered suspect because it is claimed he lied.I consider he is not suspect because he told the truth,but according to some posters,I am wrong .I have to accept he is suspect because everyone so claimed to be a suspect,has to be referred to as one.That is how it has always been they claim.I should not use the term person of interest,they say,which is a pretty neutral term. What do you say. Am I ignorant because I believe Druitt innocent,that he is just a person of interest.
                    You seem to have great faith in John Hainsworth. He knew who the ripper was is his claim.Did he know who 'Ali Babba' was. Gut might even know that.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by harry View Post
                      Roy,
                      Harry,

                      . My intention is not to change the meaning of the word suspect,only that it be used in it's proper place.
                      But the question is what criteria do we use in deciding who is a suspect and who is a person of interest? I donít know how many times ive asked this question Harry but, as yet, no one has responded with - a suspect is a person that.........whilst a person of interest is a .....

                      . For instance.Cross/Lechmere is considered suspect because it is claimed he lied.I consider he is not suspect because he told the truth,but according to some posters,I am wrong .I have to accept he is suspect because everyone so claimed to be a suspect,has to be referred to as one.That is how it has always been they claim.
                      This illustrates the point Harry. Fish and others think that Lechmere is our likeliest Suspect. Some consider him as least a reasonable suspect (Abby for example) Some think that he isnít a good suspect (myself for example) and some think that he doesnít deserve the label suspect (yourself and probably others) Thatís 4 groups of people with differences of opinions on whether Lechmere deserves to be a suspect or whether heís a particularly strong one. How do we decide, as a group of people (Ripperologists) whether he merits the term suspect?

                      .
                      I should not use the term person of interest,they say,which is a pretty neutral term. What do you say. Am I ignorant because I believe Druitt innocent,that he is just a person of interest.
                      You are free to hold your own opinion on the validity of any candidate Harry. As we all are. But who gets to decide who is a suspect or person of interest?

                      .
                      You seem to have great faith in John Hainsworth. He knew who the ripper was is his claim.Did he know who 'Ali Babba' was. Gut might even know that.
                      Personally Harry I think that Jon Hainsworth wrote an excellent book with some excellent information and research. I donít know f youíve read it? Itís usually the first step before criticism Iíd hope.


                      Harry, I canít keep asking the same two very simple questions to you and Trevor.

                      1. What criteria should we use when deciding who should be labelled a suspect and who isnít? (I might add that if itís based on interpretations who would be the final arbiter in the event of a difference of opinion?)

                      and

                      2. Can you and Trevor give us some examples of suspects and persons of interest please so that we can gauge your interpretation?
                      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-12-2019, 11:18 AM.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        But only in the Memorandum which wasnít for public consumption. Hence the 41 year old doctor. Much is made of these errors of course but it has to be said that when colleagues and friends are complimenting Macnaghten one thing they all seemed to point out was his remarkable memory for details.
                        ahh-got it. right. thanks. of course it makes no sense because the MM for all intents and purposes looks like it was intended for some kind of consumption, no? further, why write anything like this at all where you name him if your trying to protect the family?!?just leave him out and put forth others. and anyway the police and McNaughten would have been only too happy to have caught the ripper and or solved the mystery (and take credit)and barring someone like an immediate family member you can be sure McNaughten would have screamed it from the rooftops if he thought he had his man. Im sorry but his theory is balderdash.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Thanks Harry for your reply,

                          Originally posted by harry View Post
                          Roy,

                          You seem to have great faith in John Hainsworth. He knew who the ripper was is his claim.
                          Say what? You asked me directly what Hainsworth proved. I replied directly to you he proved nothing. Did you not read that?

                          You are putting words in my mouth Harry and then you are yourself answering those imaginary words I didn't say. I don't have a comeback for that, I honestly don't.

                          Roy

                          Sink the Bismark

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Harry,



                            But the question is what criteria do we use in deciding who is a suspect and who is a person of interest? I donít know how many times ive asked this question Harry but, as yet, no one has responded with - a suspect is a person that.........whilst a person of interest is a .....



                            This illustrates the point Harry. Fish and others think that Lechmere is our likeliest Suspect. Some consider him as least a reasonable suspect (Abby for example) Some think that he isnít a good suspect (myself for example) and some think that he doesnít deserve the label suspect (yourself and probably others) Thatís 4 groups of people with differences of opinions on whether Lechmere deserves to be a suspect or whether heís a particularly strong one. How do we decide, as a group of people (Ripperologists) whether he merits the term suspect?



                            You are free to hold your own opinion on the validity of any candidate Harry. As we all are. But who gets to decide who is a suspect or person of interest?



                            Personally Harry I think that Jon Hainsworth wrote an excellent book with some excellent information and research. I donít know f youíve read it? Itís usually the first step before criticism Iíd hope.


                            Harry, I canít keep asking the same two very simple questions to you and Trevor.

                            1. What criteria should we use when deciding who should be labelled a suspect and who isnít? (I might add that if itís based on interpretations who would be the final arbiter in the event of a difference of opinion?)

                            and

                            2. Can you and Trevor give us some examples of suspects and persons of interest please so that we can gauge your interpretation?
                            Well look at the list of "suspects" as shown on the suspects page on here, and look at what is suggested makes them a suspect, and see how many you would put into each category, or would you suggest that they are all worthy of the suspect tag by what is suggested makes then a suspect by reason of evidence

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Well look at the list of "suspects" as shown on the suspects page on here, and look at what is suggested makes them a suspect, and see how many you would put into each category, or would you suggest that they are all worthy of the suspect tag by what is suggested makes then a suspect by reason of evidence

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Yes but by looking at what makes each of them a suspect are we all going to agree? How do we decide if 20 people say that CF is a suspect but 20 say that he wasnít. Obviously you can replace CF with any named suspect and the same problem remains.

                              So absolutely Iíd keep it simple. A suspect is someone that has been suspected by someone at some point.

                              My next question would be - what problem would this, does this, cause? Iíd say none whatsoever. We all understand why, in a police investigation, they have to have a more rigidly defined use of the word suspect. They have issues of manpower, resources and time. They canít afford to waste valuable time on obscure, minor suspects. But as we arenít in a police investigation we have no such problems. We have pretty much unlimited manpower and resources (when HarryD started the Druitt thread no one was forced to post if they felt that doing so was keeping them from more important things. Itís a choice.) Time isnít an issue either. No women are going to die while we discuss Druitt and we are never going to put the ripper in the dock. If anyone doesnít feel that Druitt is worthy of being called a suspect can do what I do in regard to Lewis Carroll or William Gull. I donít waste my time discussing them.

                              So to sum up - there are no benefits with using a modern police jargon definition of suspect. There are also no disadvantages with using the dictionary definition. So attempting change is pointless, almost impossible to achieve fairly and a complete waste of time.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Yes but by looking at what makes each of them a suspect are we all going to agree? How do we decide if 20 people say that CF is a suspect but 20 say that he wasnít. Obviously you can replace CF with any named suspect and the same problem remains.

                                So absolutely Iíd keep it simple. A suspect is someone that has been suspected by someone at some point.

                                My next question would be - what problem would this, does this, cause? Iíd say none whatsoever. We all understand why, in a police investigation, they have to have a more rigidly defined use of the word suspect. They have issues of manpower, resources and time. They canít afford to waste valuable time on obscure, minor suspects. But as we arenít in a police investigation we have no such problems. We have pretty much unlimited manpower and resources (when HarryD started the Druitt thread no one was forced to post if they felt that doing so was keeping them from more important things. Itís a choice.) Time isnít an issue either. No women are going to die while we discuss Druitt and we are never going to put the ripper in the dock. If anyone doesnít feel that Druitt is worthy of being called a suspect can do what I do in regard to Lewis Carroll or William Gull. I donít waste my time discussing them.

                                So to sum up - there are no benefits with using a modern police jargon definition of suspect. There are also no disadvantages with using the dictionary definition. So attempting change is pointless, almost impossible to achieve fairly and a complete waste of time.
                                Its not a waste of time for those who want to look at this as a modern day cold case review. It is a waste of time for those who don't believe there is a difference between a suspect and a person of interest.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X