Are We Correct To Use The Word Suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can someone tell me what possible difference does it make to us whether we use suspect for anyone suspected as opposed to having suspects and persons of interest?

[Michael W Richards]

We do in fact have some people who were considered legitimate "Suspects" in these cases, because we have named individuals who officials stated might be responsible for the murders. Like Abberlines comments on Chapman, The MM. The accusation that it was Millen. Not just "in connection" with the murders. But its a short list, and so far, not much use in solving the cases.

[Trevor Marriott]

So, someone is a 'person of interest', then becomes a 'suspect' when more information is available, but what if you have no further information, ever?

Then he stays a person of interest

As a modern policeman your case can't be progressed. But you are not a modern policeman, you are someone looking back over a century or more at a case investigated by somebody else, someone who, for reasons unknown to you, concluded that the person actually was the murderer. The evidence you know is nil, yet you want to classify as a mere 'person of interest' the person who the policeman back then thought was the murderer.

The principle is the same there has to be some real suspicion from 1888 for us to use the term suspect 130 years later if we are reexamining the case and all the evidence. There is nothing other that what MM wrote, and we dont know what that was so we have to air on the side of caution when labelling persons suspects or prime suspects, that why we have such a long list because every tom dick and harry who has a theory on a suspect has come forward over the years and added their suspect name to the list without there being any evidence.

You are in complete ignorance of the facts, so can you tell me what right you have to relegate to a 'person of interest' or worse a suspect believed to be guilty by a policeman who was in full command of the facts?

You are the one who is in ignorance because you cant understand what makes a person of interest differ from a suspect. Yoy keep saying we dont know thats true we dont so until we do we dont go throwing what maybe be false accusations against a dead person.

This isn't about categorizing suspects today, it's about determing the significance of suspects back then.

Exactly, and when there is no evidence other than an opinion which appears in a document littered with errors. which if MM was such a wonderful proficient policeman man should not have been there.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Can someone tell me what possible difference does it make to us whether we use suspect for anyone suspected as opposed to having suspects and persons of interest?

It makes a difference to those of us who look on this as a cold case review and not a historical fandago, like some seem to be doing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Roy Corduroy]

This thread is an amazing, just amazing conversation taking place. Folks (such as that rare gem "Harry") but many other posters too, vets & newbies, have turned back the clock, to ... what ... 1966 ..., after Tom Cullen stole Dan Farson's briefcase containing the Aberconway version of the Macnaghten Memorandum and published his book. So the harping begins. There's even a photo of Simon in the company of Tom and others. So I guess we're hearing the same carping now as then. Druitt wasn't a doctor, Ostrog was in France at the time ... etc. Nothing has changed.

I can excuse Trevor's ignorance. That's to be expected of course. But everyone else, it's like - "Oh no - Absolutely no research or critical thinking has been done on the Druitt case since 1966, when we developed our ironclad opinions set in stone from which we will not deviate one iota." It's calcified. Just as Jonathan Hainsworth used to argue right here on the forums. Ever heard of him? The gent from down under. Made web posts, wrote articles, actually wrote a book.

Again, I excuse Trevor for simply aping the existing calcified dogma, then claiming it's some new 21st century horseshit. He doesn't know any better, the poor soul.

But the rest of yall. Goodness gracious.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Oops this is in the wrong section. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because it still applies to the general line of dumbness prevailing ever since Trevor arrived here. At least I can say this - his spelling, grammar and punctuation has improved LIGHT YEARS from what it was.

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

Oops this is in the wrong section. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because it still applies to the general line of dumbness prevailing ever since Trevor arrived here. At least I can say this - his spelling, grammar and punctuation has improved LIGHT YEARS from what it was.

Roy

Thank you for you kind words, but you are pointing the finger of dumbness in the wrong direction. Its yourself and the rest of the minority who make up the numpty faction you should be addressing those comments to.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Make way for a Troll Detector!!!!

[harry]

Roy,
There are degrees of dumbness.I may be dumb,I freely admit it,but not so dumb as those that say I am.What may I ask,have you contributed since 1966,that is groundbreaking? You another that confuse information with evidence?

[Harry D]

This thread is an amazing, just amazing conversation taking place. Folks (such as that rare gem "Harry") but many other posters too, vets & newbies, have turned back the clock, to ... what ... 1966 ..., after Tom Cullen stole Dan Farson's briefcase containing the Aberconway version of the Macnaghten Memorandum and published his book. So the harping begins. There's even a photo of Simon in the company of Tom and others. So I guess we're hearing the same carping now as then. Druitt wasn't a doctor, Ostrog was in France at the time ... etc. Nothing has changed.

I can excuse Trevor's ignorance. That's to be expected of course. But everyone else, it's like - "Oh no - Absolutely no research or critical thinking has been done on the Druitt case since 1966, when we developed our ironclad opinions set in stone from which we will not deviate one iota." It's calcified. Just as Jonathan Hainsworth used to argue right here on the forums. Ever heard of him? The gent from down under. Made web posts, wrote articles, actually wrote a book.

Again, I excuse Trevor for simply aping the existing calcified dogma, then claiming it's some new 21st century horseshit. He doesn't know any better, the poor soul.

But the rest of yall. Goodness gracious.

Roy

All this post needs is a mic drop.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly, and when there is no evidence other than an opinion which appears in a document littered with errors. which if MM was such a wonderful proficient policeman man should not have been there.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Remove the word ‘littered’ then add the word ‘insignificant’ in front of the word ‘errors’ to improve the accuracy your post.

[Roy Corduroy]

All this post needs is a mic drop.

I don't know what a mic drop is. Is that an English saying? Did Mick Jagger drop his pants? You tell me.

Roy

[mpriestnall]

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?

I think these are a good set of definitions. But as someone with their own candidate for jtr with a hope to produce my own book, commerically
Modern Hypothectical Killer" is not as good as a $uspect!

Martyn

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Harry,

Roy,
What may I ask,have you contributed since 1966,that is groundbreaking?

Groundbreaking? I have contributed nothing groundbreaking. But yes I have contributed. I found info about mortuaries which I posted here and was was used in an article. I have done a survey of both city and country private asylums posted on another forum. I have studied the history of Mitre Square in depth along with other locations in East London going back to medieval times and have contributed in topical discussions.

And I have patiently followed along and learned when such giants in the field as Stewart Evans have been so kind as to share actual documentary evidence and personal viewpoints on Casebook, as well as read all his books and many others. I welcomed Jonathan Hainsworth whom I felt brought a brand new and much needed perspective to the Druitt scenario. Does that mean I necesarily think Montage Druitt is Jack the Ripper. No, of course not.

Because I have certainly been guilty in the past of regurgitating the same calcified dogma that I scold others for doing. But I have tried to get past that. And keep an open mind. Do you, Harry?

Roy

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jon Hainsworth’s book is excellent imo.