Originally posted by rjpalmer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What makes Druitt a viable suspect?
Collapse
X
-
-
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.
Comment
-
"- Kosminski was the suspect." -- Donald Swanson. He was and remains (unless exhonerated like Ostrog) a suspect. end of story."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post"- Kosminski was the suspect." -- Donald Swanson. He was and remains (unless exhonerated like Ostrog) a suspect. end of story.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostIn 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.
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.ukLast edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-30-2019, 12:36 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by PaulB View Post
In your opinion. How about answering the questions, Trevor?
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View Post
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.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by PaulB View Post
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
And let you continue to throw you plethora of historical spanners into the works, you must be joking
Comment
-
Originally posted by PaulB View Post
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 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by PaulB View Post
But Kosminski was 'a suspect'. Tumblety was 'among the suspects'. They were suspects.
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.ukLast edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-30-2019, 03:57 PM.
Comment
Comment