What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[PaulB]

Hi Herlock,

What I think Trevor is referring to, in modern police parlance, is a "detected crime"; a crime where the police are confident they know the identity of the criminal, but, for whatever reason, no charges can be filed, and no prosecution can take place, thus there is no reason to proceed. Maybe all the witnesses have died, or evidence has been accidently destroyed, etc. The suspect himself may have lung cancer and will be dead before the case could possibly make it through court. Thus, the file is closed and marked "detected crime," even though, as far as the public is concerned, the crime was never solved.

(If you are interested, see the link below to an article in the Irish Times back in 2002, where there was some debate over whether the books in Ireland were being cleared by marking down crimes as "detected," even though they were not).

I don't think the Victorians used the term, but somewhat ironically, I think it is identical to what Sir Robert Anderson and John Littlechild meant when they wrote about "moral guilt" or a suspect being "morally guilty." It was a situation where the police were morally certain of a suspect's guilt, but there simply wasn't enough legal evidence to convict. Anderson distinguishes between the two types of guilt, and even uses the term to describe the case against the Polish Jew.

But what I think Trevor (and Simon) may also be saying (and they can certainly chime in if they want) is that if Macnaghten considered the Druitt case a "detected crime," then why did they still proceed to investigate Kosminski, Sadler, Grant, etc.? The file was not closed.

I'm not defending or dismissing the argument, just explaining what I think Mr. M is getting at.

It is, I think, a reasonable suggestion, but, my counter-argument is as follows. To put a twist on an old saying: "doubt springs eternal." Even if the police thought X was guilty of the 1888 murders, why wouldn't they exercise due diligence and investigate Sadler (or Grant) if they were suspected of cutting up a woman in the East End in 1891 or 1895?

I may be morally certain that my brother is the one that stole my Spalding baseball mitt (I know he did!), but if I saw the neighbor kid wearing an identical mitt a few months later, I would be curious enough to investigate anyway. Because doubt, suspicion, etc., "springs eternal." Especially when the cases were necessarily circumstantial.

That is what Simon calls "the Romantic view of things." Talk to you later.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/gardai-review-detected-crime-definition-1.1088285

Would the police have suspected Sadler of having committed the earlier murders if the man they believed to have committed those murders was dead or incarcertaed? As you say, yes they would, especially if there was any doubt at all about the man they suspected. And the added complication is the possibility that the same person wasn't responsible for all the murders. Anderson could have been certain that Kosminski was responsible for the murder with which he was associated by the eye-witness, but his responsibility for the other murders would have been based on the assumption that all the murders were committed by the same person.

[John G]

In order to make a lawful arrest the police currently have to have a reasonable suspicion. This is defined as:

"A reasonable suspicion requires the existence of some facts of information which would satisfy sn objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence." (Salmon v Northern Ireland Chief Constable {2013} NIQB 10

In other words the grounds for arresting a suspect is set at a pretty low bar-the police merely have to be in possession of information that indicates the suspect may have committed the offence. Of course there is no guidance on what constitutes a mere suspect, but presumably the grounds would, in reality, be even lower.

[Abby Normal]

"- Kosminski was the suspect." -- Donald Swanson. He was and remains (unless exhonerated like Ostrog) a suspect. end of story.

[Trevor Marriott]

"- Kosminski was the suspect." -- Donald Swanson. He was and remains (unless exhonerated like Ostrog) a suspect. end of story.

And who was Kosminski? certainly not Aaron !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

In order to make a lawful arrest the police currently have to have a reasonable suspicion. This is defined as:

"A reasonable suspicion requires the existence of some facts of information which would satisfy sn objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence." (Salmon v Northern Ireland Chief Constable {2013} NIQB 10

In other words the grounds for arresting a suspect is set at a pretty low bar-the police merely have to be in possession of information that indicates the suspect may have committed the offence. Of course there is no guidance on what constitutes a mere suspect, but presumably the grounds would, in reality, be even lower.

The Police Codes from 1888 state "A constable is also justified in arresting on reasonable suspicion that a felony has been committed"
There is no definitive definition as to reasonable suspicion, so any police officer of any rank receiving information on a potential suspect could potentiality arrest and conduct an interview.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

And who was Kosminski? certainly not Aaron !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In your opinion. How about answering the questions, Trevor?

[PaulB]

And who was Kosminski? certainly not Aaron !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But Kosminski was 'a suspect'. Tumblety was 'among the suspects'. They were suspects.

[John G]

The Police Codes from 1888 state "A constable is also justified in arresting on reasonable suspicion that a felony has been committed"
There is no definitive definition as to reasonable suspicion, so any police officer of any rank receiving information on a potential suspect could potentiality arrest and conduct an interview.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Yes, and therefore the police in 1888 had to meet objective criteria to determine that they had legal grounds to make arrest am, which is, of course, also the position today.

However, as far as I'm aware there never has been any objective criteira, i.e. Parliamentary statute, guidance, code, case law, defining what constitutes a mere suspect.

Therefore designating a person a suspect is a purely subjective matter. Put simply, if the police say someone is a suspect then they're a suspect, regardless as to whether the suspicion is reasonably held.

Macnaghten, of course, stated that there was "reasonable suspicion " against Druitt, which may have just been his own personal opinion. However, even if Druitt was described as a reasonable suspect in official police documents it would only mean that it was someone's subjective view that he should be designated such.

[Trevor Marriott]

In your opinion. How about answering the questions, Trevor?

I have answered all the questions, its a shame you dont like the answers !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

I have answered all the questions, its a shame you dont like the answers !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, you haven't answered any of my questions and claiming to have done so is your usual trick when backed into a corner. Your next move will be to declare that you're not going to post to the thread anymore.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Yes, and therefore the police in 1888 had to meet objective criteria to determine that they had legal grounds to make arrest am, which is, of course, also the position today.

However, as far as I'm aware there never has been any objective criteira, i.e. Parliamentary statute, guidance, code, case law, defining what constitutes a mere suspect.

Therefore designating a person a suspect is a purely subjective matter. Put simply, if the police say someone is a suspect then they're a suspect, regardless as to whether the suspicion is reasonably held.

Macnaghten, of course, stated that there was "reasonable suspicion " against Druitt, which may have just been his own personal opinion. However, even if Druitt was described as a reasonable suspect in official police documents it would only mean that it was someone's subjective view that he should be designated such.

If someone gave information to a police officer on a crime, and who the "likely" perpetrator was, then that officer would be justified in arresting that person on suspicion. It would be for the officer to justify his grounds for reasonable suspicion when the person was booked into custody.

It would then all come down to the fact that if the person was an innocent party and took action for unlawful arrest. it would again be for the officer to show what his reasonable suspicion was.

Take the seaside home debacle. There is no mention of any arrest being made before, or after the mythical ID parade, yet if we are to believe all that why was there no arrests made?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

No, you haven't answered any of my questions and claiming to have done so is your usual trick when backed into a corner. Your next move will be to declare that you're not going to post to the thread anymore.

And let you continue to throw you plethora of historical spanners into the works, you must be joking

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

And let you continue to throw you plethora of historical spanners into the works, you must be joking

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The fact is that you have repeatedly stated and used as a foundation to many of your arguments that Macnaghten never told anyone about the information he received concerning Druitt. You are obliged to produce the evidence you have and on which you base that statement. Do you appreciate how ridiculous it is to say you're not going to justify your argument because you're frightened of 'historical spanners' (whatever those are)? But I suppose I must be grateful that at least you've admitted that you haven't answered my questions because you're afraid of my replies!

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact is that you have repeatedly stated and used as a foundation to many of your arguments that Macnaghten never told anyone about the information he received concerning Druitt. You are obliged to produce the evidence you have and on which you base that statement. Do you appreciate how ridiculous it is to say you're not going to justify your argument because you're frightened of 'historical spanners' (whatever those are)? But I suppose I must be grateful that at least you've admitted that you haven't answered my questions because you're afraid of my replies!

If MM had told anyone or done anything about this "Hot" info someone would have mentioned it over the years, or there would have been something in writing to corroborate such a so called important revelation. The fact that there is nothing to me is good evidence that whatever it was 9 years later was nothing more than hearsay, and could not be corroborated, and he did nothing with it because there was nothing he could do after 9 years, and with out any form of corroboration from an evidential perspective it is worthless and he simply gace an opinion based on the suggested profile made by other years previous. And after 9 years was anyone really interested

If you want to keep believing that the info he was given was the key to unlocking the mystery so be it, but try just for once to see another side to what you wrongly perceive to be the truth.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But Kosminski was 'a suspect'. Tumblety was 'among the suspects'. They were suspects.

But not Aaron !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aaron was a square peg that was rammed into a round hole.

You show me among all the official police records from 1888 or beyond for that matter where the full name of Aaron Kosminski is mentioned ? A prime suspect who was never even arrested. Thats says how much regard we should give to the term suspect as used in 1888

www.trevormarriott.co.uk