Are We Correct To Use The Word Suspect?

[PaulB]

That’s a definition the police would use but we aren’t police. According to that definition there are no current suspects. This achieves nothing. The dictionary definition is more appropriate for us I.e. a suspect is some who is suspected.

What concerns us to how seriously the suspects were regarded by the policemen back then, not how policemen would define them today, especially when we are for the most part completely ignorant of the evidence on which the policemen back then based their suspicions. As said, Littlechild described Tumblety as a suspect and he thought he was a good one. We have no idea why he thought that, so who are we to suggest that Tumblety wasn't a 'suspect'. Anderson thought 'Kosminski' was Jack the Ripper and Macnaghten thought pretty much the same about Druitt. we have no right to relegate them to a 'person of interest'.

[John G]

It's worth pointing out that "person of interest " has no meaning in English law. It is a term used by law enforcement in America (first known use was in 1986), basically because the police risked being sued for defamation if they labelled someone a suspect, i.e. because the term could be regarded as inferring "perpetrator".

[PaulB]

A person can start off as a person of interest, and then can become a suspect when there is sufficient facts or evidence to put him under proper suspicion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And, as you are repeatedly asked but never answer, how do you know that there weren't 'sufficient facts or evidence' when you don't know what the evidence was?

The point you keep avoiding is that the quality of the evidence is what distinguishes a 'person of interest' from a 'suspect', but when you don't know what the evidence was, you can't make that distinction.

[Trevor Marriott]

Given the wealth of material available, I find categorizing things a convenient way of giving subject matter context.

For me:

Suspects ...are people named as such by contemporary police officials or documents directly or in directly involved with the case.

Persons of interest ... are people who have some direct link to the case, either via contemporary police or newspaper reports, but are not included in the above.

Modern hypothesis ... people not included in the two above categories, who have subsequently be named as the killer.

Don't most disciplines invent there own set of definitions so everyone is on the same page, so to speak, and isn't that a handy thing to do?

A person can start off as a person of interest, and then can become a suspect when there is sufficient facts or evidence to put him under proper suspicion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[drstrange169]

Given the wealth of material available, I find categorizing things a convenient way of giving subject matter context.

For me:

Suspects ...are people named as such by contemporary police officials or documents directly or in directly involved with the case.

Persons of interest ... are people who have some direct link to the case, either via contemporary police or newspaper reports, but are not included in the above.

Modern hypothesis ... people not included in the two above categories, who have subsequently be named as the killer.

Don't most disciplines invent there own set of definitions so everyone is on the same page, so to speak, and isn't that a handy thing to do?

[harry]

I agree Michael,and one doesn't need to be a police officer to follow that logic.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone that has a physical link to the crime scene or a circumstantial link with the deceased would be a Person of Interest, in that a statement would be sought to obtain whatever information is available through those sources. That is not a suspicion of guilt in any way. To Suspect someone has to be based on tangible, substantial linkage. And a plausible motive.

That’s a definition the police would use but we aren’t police. According to that definition there are no current suspects. This achieves nothing. The dictionary definition is more appropriate for us I.e. a suspect is some who is suspected.

[Michael W Richards]

Anyone that has a physical link to the crime scene or a circumstantial link with the deceased would be a Person of Interest, in that a statement would be sought to obtain whatever information is available through those sources. That is not a suspicion of guilt in any way. To Suspect someone has to be based on tangible, substantial linkage. And a plausible motive.

[harry]

If you understood Herlock,you would know that what I said is that it would be preferable to use police Jargon,not that we should use it.
It's always been up to the individual.Now are you clear?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone that feels the term appropriate,Herlock.Nothing to misunderstand.

I just wanted to be clear on what you were saying because you and Trevor have been saying that we should all use the modern police jargon definition of suspect as opposed to the dictionary definition and that anyone that doesn’t fit that definition should be labelled a person of interest instead. Now you appear to be saying that it should be up to the individual?

[harry]

Anyone that feels the term appropriate,Herlock.Nothing to misunderstand.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone who believes term appropriate Gut.

So this means that anyone is free to use the phrases suspect or person of interest?

Am I misunderstanding you Harry?

[harry]

Anyone who believes term appropriate Gut.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Posters can write what they like Gut.I have never insisted on anything else.but because every so called suspect is vigorously attacked on these boards,as to their right to be classed as such,that the evidence doesn't fit,then I do think another description is needed.

Who decides who deserves to be labelled a suspect or person of interest?

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

I think Jude53 has made an important point. I've seen a few posts indicate that "suspect" is tied to guilt, that in order for someone to be a "suspect" they need to be "guilty". And that is incorrect. Suspect just means, as Jude53 pointed out, there is reason to investigate. A suspect is just someone whom is being investigated to determine if they are, or are not, guilty. And that is also how it is used here, suspect is the person under consideration.

For some suspects, the very reason for proposing them as a suspect is so weak that the case against the suspect is hopelessly weak from the start (i.e. Lewis Carrol). I suppose technically they are still a "suspect" if someone researchers them to see if they can find evidence, etc, but given the fantasy upon which the line of investigation started such random picks are bound to fail. But that is an evaluation of the "case" brought against the suspect. Just because a case is very weak doesn't change the fact that "Lewis Carrol is the suspect in this investigation". Now, one could argue that such investigations would never be under taken by the police, and that's probably true. But the police have limited resources of time and money, and they also have a duty not to investigate someone on a whim. They must have a stronger starting point. When someone is doing it on their own time, at their own expense, well, some will part with their money and time with fewer constraints I guess.

Then there are the suspects for which there is some tantalizing lead, or circumstance, that makes them interesting to look at. And one of two things happens, the research turns up evidence that tends to clear them so the case against them collapses (though it's amazing how many will try and prop them up for as long as possible). I suppose at that point they lose their suspect status for most people, but there are always those who will continue to pursue any investigation, despite the person being in another country (there's a few of those, so take your pick).

Or the research fails to the find the key information so the case goes nowhere but it also never collapses, stuck in the transit lounge waiting to find out what the destination is, forever stuck in suspect land.

Or, and with JtR this has yet to happen, key evidence of a definitive sort is uncovered and the case is solved. (I know, it's been "solved" about twice a year now). At that point, the person loses their suspect status and becomes "the offender", or in JtR speak, "the solution".

- Jeff