Are We Correct To Use The Word Suspect?

[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]

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.

[GUT]

I’d have said they were upper middle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d have said they were upper middle.

Sounds about right to me GUT.

[harry]

That we cannot convict anyone, doesn't matter.The interest was,is, and will continue to be,can the identity of the ripper be revealed.Some claims he has been.Most disagree.There has been at least two confessions.There has been over two hundred named suspects,and heaps of so called proofs.All this in spite of officers who conducted the investigation into the ripper murders stating there were no proofs,no suspects.
Posters claim I should not use modern terminology, while they themselves are guilty of doing just that. Serial killer,geographical profiling, are modern usage,just to name two,and nothing is said of their use,but I use the modern term'Person of interest' and the heavens of opposition open up.One poster even counts the number of posters opposed to my usage.What a fool.Now I am not against using modern police terminology.If it helps to describe persons or situations of times when the terminology was not in use,well and good,and it is preferable in cases where a term is wrongly used,the most common,on these threads, being the word 'Suspect'.
For those that claim the term 'Suspect' has no legal standing,or claims to that efect,I would refer them to the judges rules,which,in England take preference.Here in Australia too Gut.

[GUT]

That we cannot convict anyone, doesn't matter.The interest was,is, and will continue to be,can the identity of the ripper be revealed.Some claims he has been.Most disagree.There has been at least two confessions.There has been over two hundred named suspects,and heaps of so called proofs.All this in spite of officers who conducted the investigation into the ripper murders stating there were no proofs,no suspects.
Posters claim I should not use modern terminology, while they themselves are guilty of doing just that. Serial killer,geographical profiling, are modern usage,just to name two,and nothing is said of their use,but I use the modern term'Person of interest' and the heavens of opposition open up.One poster even counts the number of posters opposed to my usage.What a fool.Now I am not against using modern police terminology.If it helps to describe persons or situations of times when the terminology was not in use,well and good,and it is preferable in cases where a term is wrongly used,the most common,on these threads, being the word 'Suspect'.
For those that claim the term 'Suspect' has no legal standing,or claims to that efect,I would refer them to the judges rules,which,in England take preference.Here in Australia too Gut.

I don’t think anyone gives a ..... that you use POI it’s when you insist no one else can use suspect and MUST use POI.

[John G]

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.

The Victorian class system was certainly complex. Upper class would have included the Royal Family, members of the aristocracy, baronets, knights of the realm, clergymen and gentlemen. This last category is particularly confusing. For instance, doctors were not admitted to gentleman's clubs as they worked with their hands, so werw considered middle class. On the other hand, barristers were, as clerks did their writing, so may have been regarded as upper class.

Interesting points about HL Fleet and Druitt's uncle, which I was unaware of. Which uncle Robert is referred to? I mean, wasn't there a Doctor Robert Druitt who died in 1883?

[harry]

No Gut,I do not and have not,insisted the term POI be used.My writings,if they be read carefully, infer that I think the term preferable to suspect.You are wrong again.

[GUT]

No Gut,I do not and have not,insisted the term POI be used.My writings,if they be read carefully, infer that I think the term preferable to suspect.You are wrong again.

Well why keep banging on about it.

[GUT]

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.

So, your las sentence isn’t advocating a switch to POI??

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Victorian class system was certainly complex. Upper class would have included the Royal Family, members of the aristocracy, baronets, knights of the realm, clergymen and gentlemen. This last category is particularly confusing. For instance, doctors were not admitted to gentleman's clubs as they worked with their hands, so werw considered middle class. On the other hand, barristers were, as clerks did their writing, so may have been regarded as upper class.

Interesting points about HL Fleet and Druitt's uncle, which I was unaware of. Which uncle Robert is referred to? I mean, wasn't there a Doctor Robert Druitt who died in 1883?

Hello John.

Roger Palmer has pointed out to be that Monty’s uncle Robert died in 1883. I just checked David Anderson’s book, it was actually his Uncle James. I should have checked rather than relying on memory.

its just an interesting snippet:

“Uncle, James Druitt, had, sometime in the late 1800s commenced writing a memoir. The memoir was dictated to his daughter Barbara. For some unknown reason the memoir breaks off in November 1888, between the last murder and Montagues death. It recommences again in 1894, with the words ‘ ..avoiding all mention of the defects which one hopes to conceal from ones neighbours ’ whatever these defects might have been are, of course, pure speculation but clearly Uncle James was keeping it secret. .”

[Herlock Sholmes]

John, I forgot that this isn’t the Druitt thread. I’m going to repost the quote over there.

[John G]

Hello John.

Roger Palmer has pointed out to be that Monty’s uncle Robert died in 1883. I just checked David Anderson’s book, it was actually his Uncle James. I should have checked rather than relying on memory.

its just an interesting snippet:

“Uncle, James Druitt, had, sometime in the late 1800s commenced writing a memoir. The memoir was dictated to his daughter Barbara. For some unknown reason the memoir breaks off in November 1888, between the last murder and Montagues death. It recommences again in 1894, with the words ‘ ..avoiding all mention of the defects which one hopes to conceal from ones neighbours ’ whatever these defects might have been are, of course, pure speculation but clearly Uncle James was keeping it secret. .”

Thanks for the update, Herlock.

[Ginger]

Also, relating to what is said vs. what is understood, is there anyone at all who, having been told that "Lefty is assisting the police with their inquiries", believes that Lefty has been hired on as an outside consultant in a particularly difficult case?

[Paddy Goose]

Yes, as I see it, Trevor has 3 choices:

(1) Trevor can contact Stephen Ryder, or his lovely wife Ally, and have them change Casebook to rename the Suspect section Persons of Interest

(2) Trevor can start his own Website with categories like -
a. Persons of Interest
b. The Null Set (for those who believe there was no Jack the Ripper)
c. Win a Free Ticket to my exciting Do the Math Retired Detective Show coming to a town near you

(3) Trevor can take his ball and go home

Paddy