What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[JeffHamm]

A suspect in a criminal situation,is a person who is informed by a person having the authority to do so,that he or she is suspect.The suspect must then be given his or her rights. So when was Druitt so informed by MM Gut. Or anybody. Yes,under common law in England in 1888 that situation did apply.That is why so many senior officers of that time were able to say there were no suspects. That situation exists whether a person wishes to treat the Ripper crimes in an historical or evidential manner.Druitt was never a suspect.He will always be a person of interest.Nice of MM to choose a person whom he knew could not reply,and to phrase his comments in such an ambiguous manner.What was the information,who were the family that suspected?.Was it the whole family,one member of the family?Who was the informant?.Those questions should be answered before any claim of Druitt being a suspect is made. Forget general descriptions in a dictionary.Concentrate on what a court will accept.

Yes, and if these discussions were in the context of a police force, or court of law, that would apply. Language, however, is fluid and contextual, and when we change the context to JtR discussions and historical context, the term suspect is used to describe someone upon whom suspicion is directed. The term suspect, as applied to the relevant context of these forums, is not used the same way as in the situation you describe. And this appears to be at the heart of the contention, people are using the same word but not the same meaning.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

"Among the suspects..." (Littlechild); "Kosminski was the suspect" (Swanson)"; "the man we suspected" (Henry Cox); "We had good reason to suspect a man" (Robert Sagar); "many homicidal maniacs were suspected" (Macnaghten)

Yet, reading this thread, one would assume there were no suspects.

Only "persons of interest."

And why were they "persons of interest?"

Because they were suspected.

[JeffHamm]

"Among the suspects..." (Littlechild); "Kosminski was the suspect" (Swanson)"; "the man we suspected" (Henry Cox); "We had good reason to suspect a man" (Robert Sagar); "many homicidal maniacs were suspected" (Macnaghten)

Yet, reading this thread, one would assume there were no suspects.

Only "persons of interest."

And why were they "persons of interest?"

Because they were suspected.

Hi rjpalmer,

I'm not sure if the term "person of interest" was used in 1888? Also, I'm sure there are specifics about how that term is used in law enforcement that I am not aware of (I don't work in law enforcement so don't have the expertise with the jargon to that degree). But, if POI was commonly used in 1888, the fact that police officers used the term suspects to refer to the above indicates that those individuals had crossed whatever boundary existed at that time between POI and "suspect". If POI wasn't used, then suspect in 1888 had a broader definition than it does now (perhaps one more akin to how we're using it on these forums).

It occurred to me earlier today as well, that the phrase "good suspect" is also ambiguous in how it could be used. Personally, I consider the good as a qualifier of their "suspect" status irrespective of my assessment of the probability of guilt. So when I say someone is a "good suspect" in the context of JtR that just means their name is associated with some sort of evidence to connect them to the case, rather than, say, pick a name from the census of someone who lived in the area. I think others, however, use "good suspect" to mean they consider the probability of that person's guilt to be above a certain threshold. So if they consider Druitt unlikely to be guilty, they do not see him as a "good suspect" despite there being good reason he's researched (his name appears on a list of suspects, and he's not been proven to be incapable of being JtR, and we still don't know the details of the suspicions around him).

Anyway, I think much of the arguments are a result of using the same word but having different concepts in mind.

- Jeff

[GUT]

Never known any Court I’ve appeared in to give a rats if someone is a suspect or a person of interest once we end up in Court he is either a n accused or the defendant (varies by Court) doesnt matter if he has been told he is a suspect, as long as he has been told his rights. All that matters is if theres enough Evidence to convict him or not, in Druitts case doubtlessly 130 years later there not enough evidence, so not sure what quibbling over which terminology to use matters, he was clearly suspected by Macnaghten of being Jack.

[Sam Flynn]

The term "Person Of Interest" was first used (NB: in American policing) in 1986, during the Green River murder investigation. It certainly didn't apply in the late 19th century.

[JeffHamm]

The term "Person Of Interest" was first used (NB: in American policing) in 1986, during the Green River murder investigation. It certainly didn't apply in the late 19th century.

Oh, it's that recent. Thanks for that Sam.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Never known any Court I’ve appeared in to give a rats if someone is a suspect or a person of interest once we end up in Court he is either a n accused or the defendant (varies by Court) doesnt matter if he has been told he is a suspect, as long as he has been told his rights. All that matters is if theres enough Evidence to convict him or not, in Druitts case doubtlessly 130 years later there not enough evidence, so not sure what quibbling over which terminology to use matters, he was clearly suspected by Macnaghten of being Jack.

Hi GUT,

Well, by the time they're in court they are now, as you say, the accused. Indeed, in the legal context, what matters if they are taken to court or not. The issue here, though, is that there's a lot of argument going on that seems to me to be entirely driven by people using the word suspect to refer to different underlying concepts. I agree, Druitt was clearly suspected by MacNaghten and that to me makes him a suspect in the context of these boards since he has not been shown to be innocent. Others seem to think that because there is no strong evidence to link him, and because the information in the MM is of an unknown quality (we don't know what the private information was specifically - and there are factual errors, etc), that he shouldn't be called a suspect despite being listed as one. That to me indicates different concepts are being talked about through a common word.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Oh, it's that recent. Thanks for that Sam.

I wasn't really surprised when I looked it up, as I've always thought that "person of interest" bears the euphemistic hallmarks of a term coined in the age of Political Correctness.

[Trevor Marriott]

The term "Person Of Interest" was first used (NB: in American policing) in 1986, during the Green River murder investigation. It certainly didn't apply in the late 19th century.

Neither did the term "prime suspect" that didn't evolve until the 1930`s

But if people are going to refer to ripper suspects as prime suspects, then there is no reason why the term "person of interest should not be used in this context.

We are looking at a 130 year old crime from a modern day perspective, not what they did or didn't do back then, because we cannot change that.

The definition, interpretation, and understanding of both phrases is, based on what we know, can we today safely refer to Druitt a suspect, or is he a person of interest? All we have is the statement from MM, which everyone, and I do mean everyone has to accept is hearsay, and that's where it ends. Because we cant speculate on what it was, how reliable it was, where it came from, or what he did with it if anyhting?

We can however draw an inference as to its reliability based on when he got the information, bearing in mind he was not in the police at the time of the murders, all the errors in the MM, and the fact that there is no mention of Druitt as being a suspect by any of the many police officers involved in the case at the time or in the ensuing years.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi GUT,

Well, by the time they're in court they are now, as you say, the accused. Indeed, in the legal context, what matters if they are taken to court or not. The issue here, though, is that there's a lot of argument going on that seems to me to be entirely driven by people using the word suspect to refer to different underlying concepts. I agree, Druitt was clearly suspected by MacNaghten and that to me makes him a suspect in the context of these boards since he has not been shown to be innocent. Others seem to think that because there is no strong evidence to link him, and because the information in the MM is of an unknown quality (we don't know what the private information was specifically - and there are factual errors, etc), that he shouldn't be called a suspect despite being listed as one. That to me indicates different concepts are being talked about through a common word.

- Jeff

He is mentioned in an erroneous document !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

A suspect in a criminal situation,is a person who is informed by a person having the authority to do so,that he or she is suspect.The suspect must then be given his or her rights. So when was Druitt so informed by MM Gut. Or anybody. Yes,under common law in England in 1888 that situation did apply.That is why so many senior officers of that time were able to say there were no suspects. That situation exists whether a person wishes to treat the Ripper crimes in an historical or evidential manner.Druitt was never a suspect.He will always be a person of interest.Nice of MM to choose a person whom he knew could not reply,and to phrase his comments in such an ambiguous manner.What was the information,who were the family that suspected?.Was it the whole family,one member of the family?Who was the informant?.Those questions should be answered before any claim of Druitt being a suspect is made. Forget general descriptions in a dictionary.Concentrate on what a court will accept.

Harry,
Jack the Ripper is a murder case, but it is also happened 130-years ago and that means we often do not and cannot have the sort of evidence that a court would accept. Your expectations are therefore unreasonable, and what words mean, the way words are commonly used, is not something we 'forget'. What we 'forget' is specialist jargon that only a small number of people understand, because, as this thread proves, jargon just leads to confusion.

[PaulB]

He is mentioned in an erroneous document !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which is irrelevant. The errors don't mean that Macnaghten didn't suspect Druitt.

[PaulB]

Neither did the term "prime suspect" that didn't evolve until the 1930`s

But if people are going to refer to ripper suspects as prime suspects, then there is no reason why the term "person of interest should not be used in this context.

We are looking at a 130 year old crime from a modern day perspective, not what they did or didn't do back then, because we cannot change that.

The definition, interpretation, and understanding of both phrases is, based on what we know, can we today safely refer to Druitt a suspect, or is he a person of interest? All we have is the statement from MM, which everyone, and I do mean everyone has to accept is hearsay, and that's where it ends. Because we cant speculate on what it was, how reliable it was, where it came from, or what he did with it if anyhting?

We can however draw an inference as to its reliability based on when he got the information, bearing in mind he was not in the police at the time of the murders, all the errors in the MM, and the fact that there is no mention of Druitt as being a suspect by any of the many police officers involved in the case at the time or in the ensuing years.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

'prime suspect' and 'person of interest' are jargon. 'Prime' has a meaning people understant, 'suspect' has a meaning people understand, and 'person of interest' was an American television series. Stick with using language people understand.

[Sam Flynn]

But if people are going to refer to ripper suspects as prime suspects, then there is no reason why the term "person of interest should not be used in this context.

I don't see how we can determine that Druitt was an official "person of interest" either, so we may as well use the term "suspect" on the basis that he was clearly suspected by Macnaghten, his informant(s) and purportedly his own family.

the fact that there is no mention of Druitt as being a suspect by any of the many police officers involved in the case at the time or in the ensuing years.

The Littlechild Letter unambiguously refers to Tumblety as a "suspect", but no other officer did, that I can recall. Abberline suspected Klosowski, albeit with benefit of hindsight - is Klosowski therefore not to be called a "suspect" either?

And what of the various candidates for the Ripper identified by people other than the contemporary police; Maybrick, for example, or Prince Albert Victor - can we not call them "suspects"? In fact, there are some "modern" candidates against whom a stronger case can be argued than any pursued by the police at the time - what do we call those? I don't see why we shouldn't call them "suspects" too, even if the evidence against them is wholly unconvincing.

Now, I'm a stickler for good English but, as far as I'm concerned, "suspect" is a perfectly good word for someone suspected of being the killer by one or more persons for whatever reason at whatever time. At least "suspect" has the virtue of needing fewer keystrokes than the late 20th Century newspeak "person of interest", or the even more long-winded and redundant "possible person of interest", which has started to creep into the jargon in more recent years.

[Trevor Marriott]

Which is irrelevant. The errors don't mean that Macnaghten didn't suspect Druitt.

No one is suggesting he didnt suspect him because by what he writes shows that. But form a modern day perspective and from what enquiries have been done over the past 130 years is it right to call Druitt a suspect let me try to make it simply as to how suspects are categorized

If you house gets broken into and your rolex watch is stolen and the police carry out their investigation, They believe that A could be responsible because he lives locally. and has previous for similar burglary offences using the same MO. but so do a number of other criminals. Suspect or person of interest? "person of interest " A police officer both today and in 1888 could arrest a person on suspicion of committing a crime. If this officer above were to arrest on suspicion with what I have quoted be sufficient for him to be accepted into custody as a suspect.

Moving on with the scenario

The police having not arrested A, then receive information from a source that A has been offering for sale a Rolex Watch person of interest or suspect- "suspect"

It is a very thin line between the two categories but one that should be closely looked at, but at the end of the day does it matter one iota because there is absolutely nothing concrete to show Druitt was the killer of one some or all of the women and nothing to back up what MM writes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk