What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

Nope. A police officer could have more than one suspect. He could give them equal credence or one could appear more likely than others. You are a compendium of logical fallacies.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Trevor,
It's funny how you comment on everything, but ignore the questions you are being asked. The point is that you are attempting to apply 21st century police categorisations of 'person of interest' and 'suspect' to 19th century suspects, but this can't be done because it involves assessing and evaluating evidence which we don't have. It is also wrong to apply modern terminology to what people in the past said.

Now, you either agree with that statement or you explain why applying 21st century police categorisations doesn't involve assessing and evaluating evidence that you don't have. Simples!

[Herlock Sholmes]

But the police believed all the murders were the work of the same person, so on that basis there can only be one suspect in the eyes of each of those who gave their opinions, and the worrying thing is that none of them were singing from the same songsheet. So how reliable are those opinions? Reliable enough to justify the suspect tag, or not reliable enough for that. but sufficiently reliable to call them persons of interest?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nope. A police officer could have more than one suspect. He could give them equal credence or one could appear more likely than others. You are a compendium of logical fallacies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But what is the relevance of only needing one suspect? Tere can be more than one, ad I repeat a question is asked earlier what is the benefit if changing the terminology from suspect to person of interest, as far as I can see no benefit at all.

Exactly GUT. This is the point. There is no benefit at all. This is why I can’t help but get the feeling that it’s some kind of ploy to, in some way, relegate and sideline Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To reduce that number we do need a different terminology,and person of interest serves very well.It doesn't delete a person from being a subject of discussion,but it does allow a person to be discarded where the information and evidence is insufficient.All the more reason when we do not know what the evidence was,as in the case with Druitt.

If this was an ongoing police investigation then yes, it would be beneficial as investigating multiple suspects would take up valuable time and resources.

But as this isn’t an ongoing police investigation we have no such need. We can simply choose not to discuss or research him. This thread is not preventing us from looking into other suspects. Even if we called Druitt a person of interest it still wouldn’t stop people discussing a researching him. This is why it’s pointless to try and relabel suspects. It would achieve nothing and would only achieve confusion. Added to that it would only give us something else to argue about. Who deserves to be called a suspect and who doesn’t? Who decides the criteria and who makes the decision when opinions are divided?