Are We Correct To Use The Word Suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn't the object of sites like this to consider the known information of the Whitechapel murders.How can we start with a consideration of guilt? Isn't it a fact that the murders were investigated back in 1888,and that officers engaged in the investigation declared there were no suspects? Do we know better than them?
Suspect to me,is someone that can be directly connected to a crime.Who can be directly connected to any of the Whitechapel murders? No one.The evidence needed
doesn't exist.Is drowning oneself evidence.It might be if a confession was made by that person.

I understand that Harry but all I’m saying is - if we took all of the candidates that we’ve named as suspect and called them persons of interest, what difference would it make to anything? Individuals are free to do that if they want to. We all know which suspects/persons of interest that we give any credence to or not, as the case may be. This is the crux of the argument. Changing will make absolutely no difference to how we as individuals or as a group view the case.

[harry]

Isn't the object of sites like this to consider the known information of the Whitechapel murders.How can we start with a consideration of guilt? Isn't it a fact that the murders were investigated back in 1888,and that officers engaged in the investigation declared there were no suspects? Do we know better than them?
Suspect to me,is someone that can be directly connected to a crime.Who can be directly connected to any of the Whitechapel murders? No one.The evidence needed
doesn't exist.Is drowning oneself evidence.It might be if a confession was made by that person.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Calling someone a person of interest instead of a suspect in absolutely no way affects how we look at these crimes. This is childishly obvious. You’ve embarked on this pointless quest purely and simply because you are trying, in some way, to demote or relegate Druitt as a suspect. Your motive is as plain as a pikestaff.

[Trevor Marriott]

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 wasn’t. Obviously you can replace CF with any named suspect and the same problem remains.

So absolutely I’d 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? I’d 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 can’t afford to waste valuable time on obscure, minor suspects. But as we aren’t 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. It’s a choice.) Time isn’t 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 doesn’t feel that Druitt is worthy of being called a suspect can do what I do in regard to Lewis Carroll or William Gull. I don’t 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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 wasn’t. Obviously you can replace CF with any named suspect and the same problem remains.

So absolutely I’d 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? I’d 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 can’t afford to waste valuable time on obscure, minor suspects. But as we aren’t 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. It’s a choice.) Time isn’t 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 doesn’t feel that Druitt is worthy of being called a suspect can do what I do in regard to Lewis Carroll or William Gull. I don’t 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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry,



But the question is what criteria do we use in deciding who is a suspect and who is a person of interest? I don’t 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 isn’t a good suspect (myself for example) and some think that he doesn’t deserve the label suspect (yourself and probably others) That’s 4 groups of people with differences of opinions on whether Lechmere deserves to be a suspect or whether he’s 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 don’t know f you’ve read it? It’s usually the first step before criticism I’d hope.


Harry, I can’t 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 isn’t? (I might add that if it’s 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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks Harry for your reply,

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

[Abby Normal]

But only in the Memorandum which wasn’t 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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 don’t 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 isn’t a good suspect (myself for example) and some think that he doesn’t deserve the label suspect (yourself and probably others) That’s 4 groups of people with differences of opinions on whether Lechmere deserves to be a suspect or whether he’s 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 don’t know f you’ve read it? It’s usually the first step before criticism I’d hope.


Harry, I can’t 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 isn’t? (I might add that if it’s 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?

[harry]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks hs
but how does it protect the family when he actually named druitt ?

But only in the Memorandum which wasn’t 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.

[Abby Normal]

Yes Abby that’s it. Macnaghten with the help of his friend George Sims. To protect the Druitt family who were related by marriage to one of Macnaghten’s closest friends Sir Vivian Majendie.

Thanks hs
but how does it protect the family when he actually named druitt ?

[Harry D]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 that’s it. Macnaghten with the help of his friend George Sims. To protect the Druitt family who were related by marriage to one of Macnaghten’s closest friends Sir Vivian Majendie.

[Roy Corduroy]

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