Are We Correct To Use The Word Suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Sleuth,

The case is complicated enough as it is. It’s seems quite pointless to add another layer when it serves no benefit. The MPJ version helps the police in a current investigation but not us in a historical one.

[Sleuth1888]

If someone is suspected of committing a crime they are a suspect. Not many people use MPJ today and I for one find its application quite irritating in some situations. The public today still throw around the word 'suspect' so it shouldn't necessarily change when looking into the past to arrive at conclusions of historical events.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t really expect this to be a long thread but I just wanted to hear opinions. This point has been debated on the Druitt thread but I’m writing in general terms so I’m hoping that we don’t get side tracked by the merits or non-merits of Druitt. This is about all potential candidates for Jack the Ripper. It’s a general point.

The debate has taken two sides and those involved can of course chip in and flesh out their own viewpoints.

On one side Trevor Marriott And Harry believe that we should only use the word suspect in its modern day, Police jargon, definition.

On the the other side Paul Begg, myself, Wickerman, Sam Flynn, RJ Palmer who all believe that this is a historical investigation by ripperologists and researchers and so the dictionary definition should be applied ie that a suspect is simply someone who is suspected (by whoever)

The alternative to the (lets call it the DD version - Dictionary Definition version) would appear to involve us in emptying the suspect sections of both Forums as none would fit the MPJ version (Modern Police Jargon version) criteria and replacing it with something akin to a Persons Of Interest section. The questions raised are many. For example, Trevor has called his suspect Carl Feigenbaum a ‘very likely suspect.’ Of course Trevor is perfectly entitled to nominate a suspect but not all would agree with him on his choice so how do we decide? Do we compile lists of complicated criteria to be endlessly argued over? Do we have categories like - Person of interest - Unlikely Suspect - Suspect - Likely Suspect - Very Likely Suspect - Police Suspect? Who has the casting vote when we cannot agree? What benefit can be gained from this? Who is served by this over complication? Would it change the way that we discuss and debate candidates? Couldn’t a suspect be innocent and yet a person of interest be guilty? Yes we are going to get some ludicrous suspects but we will in no way be forced to waste our own time discussing them if we don’t wish to. And as Paul has pointed out several times - this is not an ongoing police investigation. Of course the police benefit from a tighter definition so that they don’t waste valuable resources on unlikely candidates but that doesn’t apply to us. No lives are at risk if we discuss someone who wasn’t actually the ripper.

Surely it’s simpler to do as we have always done and use the DD version? A suspect is someone that has been suspected (by whoever) Unless we’ve got some kind of league table of suspects/persons of interest I really see no point unless posters simply want to get suspects that they don’t favour relegated to a lower ranking? Do we want to be reduced to that?

Any thoughts?