[susan53]

In the first - yes. No-one knows who or where the murderer is, but there certainlyisa murderer and s/he is therefore "on the loose"


In the second, no if you are referring to the person suspected. You can only be "on the loose" if you can't be found. in the second case, the police know where their suspect is, they just don't have enough evidence to do anything.

[fface]

Quote susan53

the police know where their suspect is, they just don't have enough evidence to do anything.

Hi susan,

In this situation above, can I say the suspect is at large or on the loose?

Thanks a lot.

[susan53]

No - it's not the suspect who is on the loose/at large, but the criminal.

[fface]

Quote susan53

You can only be "on the loose" if you can't be found.

Hi susan,

I don't understand what you mean here?
Do you mean a suspect who can't be found by the police is on the loose but not at large or on the run?

Many thanks.

[susan53]

No - and you've taken my explanation out of context. You were then talking specifically about a suspect, not a wanted criminal. A suspect is an ordinary person without restrictions, and can therefore be wherever they want to be. When you're talking about a suspect, none of these expressions is really relevant. There is no reason why they should not be "free" or "under control".

You must distinguish between a suspect and a wanted criminal. To summarise:

If a criminal - ie someone who the police want to arrest for a crime - is in hiding and cannot be found, then s/he can be described as "on the loose", "at large" or "on the run" - all three are fine.

- on the loose : free, potentially dangerous or disruptive and not under control
- at large : free, potentially dangerous or disruptive and not under control
- on the run : free, wanted by and in hiding from the police

I don't think there's any more I can say about these expressions. Perhaps someone else could clarify them better.