Police terminology

Yesterday it was brought home to me how different the current use of language by the police in relation to possible crime suspects is, compared with normal everyday speech. In relation to the McCann case many have wondered how DCI Redwood could possibly state that just about everyone in any way close to Madeleine, including those who saw her last, were not 'persons of interest'. Leaving aside the total inadviseability of his making any comment on this subject at all, how can we possibly understand such a seemingly bizarre dismissive remark?

On Sky rolling news the police were appealing for information from the public concerning the horrific stabbing of a young Saudi university student in, broad daylight, as she walked along a secluded path in Colchester. At exactly the right time, and coming from the direction of the scene of the crime, a man was seen running away, a full description of him was given. Clearly, he is currently the prime suspect, however he was described as a 'person of interest'. The journalist presenting the report to camera helpfully explained that this was the terminology now used by the police instead of the word 'suspect'. Of course, that left a problem as to what to call the two cyclists who are believed to have passed by a brief while afterwards... 'potential witnesses' maybe, but that is not quite the right phrase either. Circumlocutions can sometimes muddy the waters!

That is interesting.

Without having put much thought into it before now, I thought the police had a sliding scale so to speak. The guy standing over the body with the smoking gun was immediately named suspect. The person seen running away was a person of interest, then questioned, following which he was elevated to suspect or not of interest anymore. Witnesses are witnesses, that is persons seen but known absolutely not to have been involved in the crime, for example a bus driver sitting in traffic may have witnessed the persons of interest running away.

Ultimately it is political correctness gone mad. Now I have confused myself so I need to lie down.   

The use of language, especially in the public domain, is a minefield in these enlightened and litigious times, comperedna!
Calling someone a 'person of interest' rather than a 'suspect' seems tantamount to downgrading or neutralising their suspicions. A person could be of 'interest' to the police but not necessarily because they are the guilty party! How linguistically anodyne!

The phrase I've always found amusing is 'a man is helping police with their inquiries ...'
Well now, unless Fingers the Pickpocket is sobbing with contrition in the interview room, that's exactly what he won't be doing!

Every profession has its terminology (it helps to maintain exclusivity), but where there has to be an interface with the public it can be confusing. Especially when it keeps changing and becomes the fashionable 'Jargon du Jour'. Effective communication is everything in this complicated world, without having to seek out professional glossaries.

As for Mr Redwood's statement about those who are not 'persons of interest' ......one has to ask oneself what would have happened if he'd stated the opposite.
I'd wager that it would have caused events to happen which would make his task even more difficult than it already is, if not downright impossible.
Perhaps he was not being dismissive but instead erring on the side of caution by not adding that little word 'yet'.

But strangely Commander Simon Foy, DCI Redwood's, former senior member of investigation team at Operation Grange, said the following in relation to the Tia Sharp investigation.

"Of course Stuart Hazell is absolutely a 'person of interest', regarding Tia's 'disappearance', as he has claimed, on record, to be the last person to have seen her alive"

Not so for the McCanns, or ANY of their 'friends' according to DCI Redwood and his entire 'team' of 37 police officers.

Gerry McCann is NOT, according to DCI Redwood, a person of interest, even though he has claimed, on record, that HE was the 'last' person to see a 'live' Madeleine, in her bed!

Of course it SHOULD have been his 'friend' J Tanner who SHOULD have been the 'last person' to have 'seen' a live Madeleine, being 'carried off' by the 'abductor'

But DCI Redwood has completely and utterly 'dismissed her sighting'

So JT was NOT the 'last person' to have seen a 'live' Madeleine, G McCann WAS!

What''s the 'difference'?

Stuart Hazell was NOT a 'doctor'!

Your last para. Yes indeed! What annoys me (of course he couldn't say they WERE 'persons of interest.) is that he should not have said anything about who was or was not a person of interest at all!

Re Stuart Hazell - that is indeed interesting! You are right he was a dopey low-life person, no-one with Carter Ruck and goodness knows who else behind him. No indeed...he was not a doctor!

jeanmonroe wrote: What''s the 'difference'?

Stuart Hazell was NOT a 'doctor'!

And Simon Foy was clearly intent on finding the culprit. No buls**t talk about peeling onions and going back to zero.

It seems to me at this stage of the investigation(and it has been seven years since Madeleine "disappeared"); it would be more appropriate for SY to say, "No one and nothing has been ruled out".

Aaaah these darn phrases which annoy me no end. From a simple
philosophical argument 'persons of interest or not persons of interest'
surely must dictate that the authority employing such descriptive
terms KNOW what the 'interest' is.
Therefore, if such an interest (knowledge) has not been determined
then everyone should be 'persons of interest' until full knowledge and
resolution has been realised.

comperedna wrote:Your last para. Yes indeed! What annoys me (of course he couldn't say they WERE 'persons of interest.) is that he should not have said anything about who was or was not a person of interest at all!

Very well said Comeredna   

Redwood mouthing of to the media about who were and who weren't persons of interest to him, is why I have had a problem with is ability to conduct this investigation. From what I can gather, he was told not to give out any information, while he was conducting that dig in PDL, but as far as I'm concerned, telling mouthy Redwood, to button his lip, was like closing the stable door, after the horse had bolted.

Every time Redwood has mouthed off to the media, about things that should have remained between he and his team, I'm reminded of the time Dave Edgar, one half of the McCanns former private detectives, was severely criticised for mouthing of to the media. Edgar was a former high ranking police officer, in a Northern Ireland police force.

He was always making slurs against the PJ, to the media. One of the slurs he made, was that he was passing on leads to the PJ and they weren't following them. He also told the media that he believed Madeleine, was being held in a lawless community 10km outside Praia da Luz. He went on to discuss Australian Victoria Beckham 'lookalikes, with the media. Telling them they had information, regarding Madeleine's disappearance. One poor woman was even tracked down by the Australian media, thanks to Edgar opening his mouth.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id264.html

If Edgar could be hauled over the coals for opening his mouth, I would like to know why the same didn't happen to Redwood. Maybe it is because his boss, Bernard Hogan-Howe, is a friend of Kate McCann's parents.

kathybelle wrote:

comperedna wrote:Your last para. Yes indeed! What annoys me (of course he couldn't say they WERE 'persons of interest.) is that he should not have said anything about who was or was not a person of interest at all!

Very well said Comeredna   

Redwood mouthing of to the media about who were and who weren't persons of interest to him, is why I have had a problem with is ability to conduct this investigation. From what I can gather, he was told  not to give out any information, while he was conducting that dig in PDL, but as far as I'm concerned, telling mouthy Redwood, to button his lip, was like closing the stable door, after the horse had bolted.

Every time Redwood has mouthed off to the media, about things that should have remained between he and his team, I'm reminded of the time Dave Edgar, one half of the McCanns former private detectives, was severely criticised for mouthing of to the media. Edgar was a former high ranking police officer, in a Northern Ireland police force.

He was always making slurs against the PJ, to the media. One of the slurs he made, was that he was passing on leads to the PJ and they weren't following them. He also told the media that he believed Madeleine, was being held in a lawless community 10km outside Praia da Luz. He went on to discuss Australian Victoria Beckham 'lookalikes, with the media. Telling them they had information, regarding Madeleine's disappearance. One poor woman was even tracked down by the Australian media, thanks to Edgar opening his mouth.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id264.html

If Edgar could be hauled over the coals for opening his mouth, I would like to know why the same didn't happen to Redwood. Maybe it is because his boss, Bernard Hogan-Howe, is a friend of Kate McCann's parents.

This is true about the whole thing, it is all wheels within wheels.

I started this thread off because I was fascinated by by current UK police use of language when talking about crime suspects. The Colchester murder of a Saudi student, in broad daylight, on a secluded path leading to a busy thoroughfare, showed that the person who was seen running away from the end of that path, and who is obviously currently considered as the prime suspect, was referred to as a 'person of interest'. I said this could explain DCI Redwood's statement that just about everyone who knew Madeleine and was out there in PDL was not a 'person of interest'. If this strange terminology is not taken into account it makes Redwood simply look a knave, or a fool... or corrupt... It was a cold case review. He need not have said anyone was or was not a 'person of interest' aka 'suspect'. A decent silence would have been preferable.

To return to the Colchester murder. This morning we were told that the police had interviewed over 200 people: passers by on the road, people walking on the pavement near to the end of the path and so on. If the ordinary phrase 'persons of interest' didn't now mean 'suspect' the term might have done for them. However, these 200 plus people were referred to a 'witnesses' (!!!!) Not potential witnesses, mind you (to seeing the man who ran away) they were called 'witnesses'. But there were NO witnesses to the stabbing... just the murderer and the victim were together on the path. We do not know if any of this 200 saw or heard anything relevant. What shabby and shifting and inaccurate use of language! Indeed, we were told there were another 200+ people that the police 'had spoken to'. er... er... Also that they had taken 30+ knives for forensic tests.

Aside from a genuine appeal for help from the public, and the necessary information given out in the hope of achieving that, there is something to be said for the Portuguese CID's attitude of keeping stum whilst an investigation is in progress.