Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    If you dont have the evidence to support the term suspect, then you cant describe someone as as a suspect. An uncorroborated opinion based on hearsay is not evidence on its own to justify someone being called a suspect, they become a person of interest. You are living in the dark ages with how you perceive all of these opinions

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Trevor,
    I'm not calling anyone a suspect. Littlechild et al are.

    I don't have to have the evidence to call someone a suspect, Littlechild et al do.

    Uncorroborated opinion based on heresay may not be sufficient to justify calling someone a 'suspect', but what is the evidence for stating that Littlechild's opinion of Tumbelty was uncorroborate and based on hearsay?

    Is there something you can't grasp about why you can't assess and evaluate evidence when you don't know what it is?

    You have to have evaluated the quality of the evidence to determine whether someone is a 'person of interest' or a 'suspect'. Right?
    If you don't have any evidence, so you can't classify someone as a 'person of interest' or a 'suspect'. Right?
    You don't know the evidence against, say Kosminski, so you can't classify him as anything. Right?
    So, not knowing the evidence against him, you classify Kosminski as a 'person of interest' or worse. Right?
    You have relegated to a non-person of interest the man the Assistant Commissioner C.I.D. at the time of the murders was convinced was Jack. Right?
    And you've done that without having the slightest idea what the evidence against Kosminski was. Right?
    Can't to grasp why that's wrong?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      Bu we are talking about several police officers who were around at the time, and all gave different suspects. Does that tell us that they were all working together at the same time, as they should have been, or they all had different agendas, or they were all full of bull and bluster and knew nothing of any consequence?

      From what researchers have been able to find out these past 130 years the latter would seem to be a fav.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      It simply tells us that they had differing opinions. Surely you canít tell me that when you were a detective officer there werenít occasions when you and a colleague had differing opinions over suspects even though you were working on the same team? Why should be assume different agendas or dishonesty when we have the simple possibility of a difference of opinion in the absence of overwhelming evidence?
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • Trevor,

        Of all the named suspects which, if any, deserve the term suspect and which should be labelled persons of interest? Just examples of course Iím not expecting you to classify everyone named.

        Now youíve made those classifications tell me what difference it makes to anyone looking into the case? What advantage to we gain from your classifications?
        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Bu we are talking about several police officers who were around at the time, and all gave different suspects. Does that tell us that they were all working together at the same time, as they should have been, or they all had different agendas, or they were all full of bull and bluster and knew nothing of any consequence?

          From what researchers have been able to find out these past 130 years the latter would seem to be a fav.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Ok, then apply that same logic to yourself.

          You were in the police, right?. Stewart Evans (Met.) & Don Rumbelow (City) were also on the force. You are all exposed to exactly the same evidence today, yet you come up with different conclusions.
          How is that possible?
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            Ok, then apply that same logic to yourself.

            You were in the police, right?. Stewart Evans (Met.) & Don Rumbelow (City) were also on the force. You are all exposed to exactly the same evidence today, yet you come up with different conclusions.
            How is that possible?
            I could make a suggestion Wick but Iíll refrain.
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • Hi Herlock, I then noticed you made a similar observation just above (#2237), I'm anxious to know which ex policeman Trevor thinks is full of bluster
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Trevor,

                Of all the named suspects which, if any, deserve the term suspect and which should be labelled persons of interest? Just examples of course Iím not expecting you to classify everyone named.

                Now youíve made those classifications tell me what difference it makes to anyone looking into the case? What advantage to we gain from your classifications?
                The only difference is that ordinary members of the public who follow this mystery, and are not as au fait with everything connected to it as you and others on here are and are without a doubt misled by what they see and read when the term suspect is used. Its the same with television progs, the term prime suspect is always banded about, and again it is misleading when there are no prime suspects based on what we know.

                When I do my talks I always ask the audience to shout out names of who they think the killer was, when those names are forthcoming, I follow it up with a question on how they came to believe in that suspect. The replies I get back are the same, by reading books, or through television documentaries. That is why in my opinion the suspect list should be brought up to date, and revised to incorporate the term person of interest. Because all 200 names on that list cannot all have been the killer.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  Ok, then apply that same logic to yourself.

                  You were in the police, right?. Stewart Evans (Met.) & Don Rumbelow (City) were also on the force. You are all exposed to exactly the same evidence today, yet you come up with different conclusions.
                  How is that possible?
                  I stand to be corrected but I dont think Stewart Evans or Don Rumbellow ever went so far as to name their own preferred suspect, They have both assessed and evaluated the facts and the evidence in exactly the same way as I have.

                  You have to remember there is a very thin line between suspect and person of interest, and expertise is needed to be to able to differentiate, and no disrespect to you or others but that is why you cannot seem to grasp this concept and this argument keeps rolling along. You see the word suspect used from 1888 and off you go reading into something that perhaps there is nothing to read into, and then coming to a dead end, you still treat it on the same level as a suspce who we can show warrants that trem being used against them

                  Had the term person of interest been around in 1888 we might not be arguing this issue.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    I stand to be corrected but I dont think Stewart Evans or Don Rumbellow ever went so far as to name their own preferred suspect, They have both assessed and evaluated the facts and the evidence in exactly the same way as I have.

                    You have to remember there is a very thin line between suspect and person of interest, and expertise is needed to be to able to differentiate, and no disrespect to you or others but that is why you cannot seem to grasp this concept and this argument keeps rolling along. You see the word suspect used from 1888 and off you go reading into something that perhaps there is nothing to read into, and then coming to a dead end, you still treat it on the same level as a suspce who we can show warrants that trem being used against them

                    Had the term person of interest been around in 1888 we might not be arguing this issue.
                    Stand corrected. I think people here understand the concept, Trevor, but you don't understand why it doesn't apply.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      The only difference is that ordinary members of the public who follow this mystery, and are not as au fait with everything connected to it as you and others on here are and are without a doubt misled by what they see and read when the term suspect is used. Its the same with television progs, the term prime suspect is always banded about, and again it is misleading when there are no prime suspects based on what we know.

                      When I do my talks I always ask the audience to shout out names of who they think the killer was, when those names are forthcoming, I follow it up with a question on how they came to believe in that suspect. The replies I get back are the same, by reading books, or through television documentaries. That is why in my opinion the suspect list should be brought up to date, and revised to incorporate the term person of interest. Because all 200 names on that list cannot all have been the killer.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Seriously, you genuinely think ordinary members of the public are misled because we use the word suspect in the way everyone and their mother understands it, and in the way our sources used it in the 19th century, instead of using 21st century police jargon with which they are unfamiliar and which you admit is so complicated that it can only be understood by someone with the expertise to be able to differentiate between a 'person of interest' and a 'suspect'? Seriously, you really believe that?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        I stand to be corrected but I dont think Stewart Evans or Don Rumbellow ever went so far as to name their own preferred suspect, They have both assessed and evaluated the facts and the evidence in exactly the same way as I have.
                        Agreed, but I was just trying to make a point.
                        Police officials can interpret the same evidence differently, and today we are not in a good position to dismiss one in favor of the other when that same evidence is not available to us.
                        We have to trust that they are applying logic superior to the average uninformed citizen.

                        You have to remember there is a very thin line between suspect and person of interest, and expertise is needed to be to able to differentiate, and no disrespect to you or others but that is why you cannot seem to grasp this concept and this argument keeps rolling along. You see the word suspect used from 1888 and off you go reading into something that perhaps there is nothing to read into, and then coming to a dead end, you still treat it on the same level as a suspce who we can show warrants that trem being used against them

                        Had the term person of interest been around in 1888 we might not be arguing this issue.
                        I get your point, but as I posted earlier to Harry, I have not taken an issue with this debate on Suspect vs Person of Interest. Except to say that if a serving policeman at the time identifies someone as a suspect we are in no position to down grade that to Person of Interest.
                        Today, just about every modern so-called suspect is nothing more than a Person of Interest, and not always of interest to everyone.

                        Last edited by Wickerman; 05-26-2019, 03:16 PM.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          The only difference is that ordinary members of the public who follow this mystery, and are not as au fait with everything connected to it as you and others on here are and are without a doubt misled by what they see and read when the term suspect is used. Its the same with television progs, the term prime suspect is always banded about, and again it is misleading when there are no prime suspects based on what we know.

                          When I do my talks I always ask the audience to shout out names of who they think the killer was, when those names are forthcoming, I follow it up with a question on how they came to believe in that suspect. The replies I get back are the same, by reading books, or through television documentaries. That is why in my opinion the suspect list should be brought up to date, and revised to incorporate the term person of interest. Because all 200 names on that list cannot all have been the killer.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          But those that donít know as much about the case but who are interested will surely just proceed to read about the case, evaluate the evidence then form their own opinion on who merits being called a suspect.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            But those that donít know as much about the case but who are interested will surely just proceed to read about the case, evaluate the evidence then form their own opinion on who merits being called a suspect.
                            In that case why are you and Saint Paul of the cant posiible be wrong faith so hell bent on keeping their status as suspect alive, when 130 years or research has not shown one jot of evidence as to why they were named as suspects.

                            Yes, and if no one puts them right then they will continue to be misled, because they will ask what was there to cause that person to be regarded as a suspect and what will we say. According to you and saint paul of the I am never wrong faith, you will say we dont know, but it must have been something otherwise they wouldn't have said it, and the they will ask what was the evidence ? and you and Saint Paul of the I am never wrong faith will say we dont know but there must have been some.

                            Then after they read the books they will say there is nothing in official police records to corroborate these opinions regarding these suspects and they will agree and go away contented and much wiser.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              In that case why are you and Saint Paul of the cant posiible be wrong faith so hell bent on keeping their status as suspect alive, when 130 years or research has not shown one jot of evidence as to why they were named as suspects.

                              Yes, and if no one puts them right then they will continue to be misled, because they will ask what was there to cause that person to be regarded as a suspect and what will we say. According to you and saint paul of the I am never wrong faith, you will say we dont know, but it must have been something otherwise they wouldn't have said it, and the they will ask what was the evidence ? and you and Saint Paul of the I am never wrong faith will say we dont know but there must have been some.

                              Then after they read the books they will say there is nothing in official police records to corroborate these opinions regarding these suspects and they will agree and go away contented and much wiser.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Instead of being rude, why don't you answer the question put to you? My guess is because you can't, so you fall back on this twaddle.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                                Instead of being rude, why don't you answer the question put to you? My guess is because you can't, so you fall back on this twaddle.
                                The only twaddle here is your lame excuses to maintain Druitt and others as suspects.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X