Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    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 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.
    Anyone described as a suspect from 1888 had to be called a suspect because the term person of interest had not evolved. But the circumstance of them being named suspects might now suggest to us today that they were nothing more than persons of interest and true suspects as we define suspect today

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


      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 "
      He is only a person of interest because it is suspected that he, among other candidates, might have been responsible for the crime. To call him a "person of interest" is merely euphemistic bet-hedging; helpful as a safeguard in case of a defamation claim, perhaps, but of little practical use otherwise.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Anyone described as a suspect from 1888 had to be called a suspect because the term person of interest had not evolved.
        Indeed and, as long as we understand that, there should be no problem.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          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.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Trevor,
          Thank you for that, but I do understand the distinction between a 'person of interest' and 'suspect' and why that distinction is made, but it is a distinction made by policemen. You are using jargon. Do you understand that? Jargon is a word or phrase that has a specialist meaning to a specific group of people and is best avoided outside that group because the man in the street does not use it or understand it. The police may make a distinction between a 'suspect' and a 'person of interest', but the man in the street doesn't. If suspicion falls on someone, he's a suspect. It's that simple. If Macnaghten suspected Druitt, Druitt is a suspect. If Sophie Herfort suspected Macnaghten, Macnaghten is a suspect, if Trevor Marriott suspects Feigenbaum, Feigenbaum is a suspect. Your use of police jargon in a non-police discussion is unnecessary and is causing confusion and, above all, is wasting all our time.


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            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 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.
            Or even worse, is assisting police with their enquires.
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • I do not think I am unreasonable in my explanations.I haven't used any word,or described any procedures that were not practised in 1888.The common law of England is still the common law of England.Murder of that sort was/is a common law crime.The word and the meaning of 'Suspect" is no different now than it was then,and if myself of 1930/40 English elementary education,cannot be understood by the many more self proclaimed scholars who post here,the fault is theirs not mine.
              Suspicion. A belief formed or held without sure proof. My dictionary states that. MM clearly indicates his was a belief ..He further states there was no proof against any person.So his(MM)'s is a belief is based on zero proof. Suspicion based on zero proof. Suspect based on zero proof. Wonder why some of us don't get it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                Suspicion. A belief formed or held without sure proof. My dictionary states that. MM clearly indicates his was a belief ..He further states there was no proof against any person.So his(MM)'s is a belief is based on zero proof. Suspicion based on zero proof. Suspect based on zero proof. Wonder why some of us don't get it.
                "Zero proof" is not the same as "zero evidence". We haven't proved that gravity is caused by the distortion of spacetime, but there's plenty of evidence to that effect.

                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Quite correct Sam,now what is the evidence against Druitt?

                  Comment


                  • I am not writing about Druitt being accused.He clearly wasn't.So what is the point of talking about court proceedings?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by harry View Post
                      Quite correct Sam,now what is the evidence against Druitt?


                      Nothing.



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        Quite correct Sam,now what is the evidence against Druitt?
                        The Macnaghten Memoranda and his autobiography are evidence in themselves. They stand in exact relation to his "suspecthood" as Einstein's 1915 paper on the General Theory of Relativity stands in relation to the concept of gravity as a distortion of spacetime.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          I am not writing about Druitt being accused.He clearly wasn't.So what is the point of talking about court proceedings?
                          Who's talking about court proceedings?
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post
                            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.


                            WEL clearly Harry was talking about court proceedings as he is talking about the need for someone to be told they are a suspect and be told their rights, things that only b3come relevant when a charge is laid.
                            G U T

                            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              In the judicial system for example a suspect can be found ‘not guilty’ but this doesn’t mean that he was innocent of course. Just that the evidence wasn’t persuasive enough to convince a jury of his guilt. And so even if someone says that the evidence isn’t strong enough to say that Druitt was guilty it still doesn’t mean that he was innocent. The fact that someone has been named as a suspect by a very senior police officer means that he has to be considered as a suspect. It really is that simple. We can debate whether or not is a good suspect but not whether he’s a suspect in the first place.

                              Roger mentioned the Wallace case. He was convicted of murdering his wife in 1931 and sentenced to death. This decision was reversed on appeal because the evidence wasn’t strong enough. The case is over but it’s still discussed. I agree that the evidence at the time wasn’t strong enough to convict and yet i strongly believe that he was guilty. He still remains a suspect for many of those interested in the case.
                              Another exchange that deals with the Court system.

                              so it seems plenty are talking about Court
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                I do not think I am unreasonable in my explanations.I haven't used any word,or described any procedures that were not practised in 1888.The common law of England is still the common law of England.Murder of that sort was/is a common law crime.The word and the meaning of 'Suspect" is no different now than it was then,and if myself of 1930/40 English elementary education,cannot be understood by the many more self proclaimed scholars who post here,the fault is theirs not mine.
                                Suspicion. A belief formed or held without sure proof. My dictionary states that. MM clearly indicates his was a belief ..He further states there was no proof against any person.So his(MM)'s is a belief is based on zero proof. Suspicion based on zero proof. Suspect based on zero proof. Wonder why some of us don't get it.
                                Harry,
                                Whether or not there is zero proof is irrelevant. You don't need proof to have a suspicion. Even Macnaghten wrote, 'many homidical maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one.' He wrote 'suspected', men upon whom suspicion had fallen, men called suspects - men called suspects even though there was 'not shadow of proof' against them.

                                In plain, everyday, understandable language, a suspect is someone on whom suspicion has fallen. Suspicion had fallen on Druitt, Druitt was a suspect. Yet you say he wasn't. Wonder why some of us don't get it?
                                ]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X