Cutbush: “A Wild Desire of Morbid Imitation.”

[R.J.Palmer]

I think a very strong case can be made that crimes of this sort are partially motivated by what might be called “publicity.”

The’ jobbing’ spree of Thomas Cutbush is a case that illustrates this point, and is worthy of further examination. I think a good argument can be made that Macnaghten was correct and that Cutbush’s crimes were a ‘wild desire of morbid imitation.’ I’ll explore this theory in the following weeks and invite any interested parties to contribute, either pro or con arguments.

To get the ball rolling, let’s start with an examination of Cutbush’s knife. In his famous memo, Macnaghten writes:

“The knife found on him was bought in Houndsditch about a week before he was detained in the Infirmary.”

As Tommy climbed out of the Lambeth Infirmary on March 5th, this would date the purchase to on or about 26 February, 1891. For convenience, for here on out I’ll use 26 February as the ‘hard date,’ unless other information comes forward.

While one could argue that Macnaghten was either mistaken or covering something up in making this claim , there is direct support for it in the contemporary court reports from three years earlier:

“Witness afterwards found a sheath knife in the pocket of the prisoner’s overcoat. The knife was produced in Court and appeared to be almost new. The blade was about 6in. long with a very sharp curved point.” The Times, 24 March, 1891. (This is the coverage of Cutbush's arraignment and the emphasis is added).

This is the same knife later mention in the papers. For the theory that Cutbush was Jack the Ripper, it is rather damning that he bought this knife directly before his ‘1891 jobbings’---not, I would argue, because Cutbush couldn't have owned a different knife in 1888 --obviously he could have--- but, rather, because it shows that Cutbush’s spree was compulsive and imitative. He bought the knife only days after the Colocitt jobbings had been discussed in the newspapers, and only two weeks after the much discussed murder of Francis Coles. More to follow.

[A.P. Wolf]

RJP
the non-progress of history is delighfully illustrated here by you using exactly the same argument that Mac did concerning this Cutbush knife.
Way back in 1994 I pointed out that a person might well purchase a new knife when their old one became blunt through too much useage; and is there not anyway a report that describes a member of Cutbush's family disarming him of a knife at a much earlier date than the purchase date of the new knife?
I'm rusty, I admit, on the Cutbush stuff at the moment, but wasn't it Colicitt who was accused of 'morbid imitation' and not Cutbush?
I welcome your interest here, RJP.
Got your umbrella?

[Robert Linford]

That's interesting, RJ. I don't know how they traced the knife - maybe there was a shop label still on it, maybe Tom himself mentioned the shop - but I take it that they were trying to see if they could charge him with Colocitt's work as well as his own. If he'd turned out to have bought the knife just before Colocitt's efforts began, then that would have been suggestive.

Robert

[Robert Linford]

RJ, looking at this the other way round, you do have to wonder : if someone starts jobbing women in the behind, just because someone else starts to do it, then what might his reaction have been to reading about Smith, or Tabram? (all depends when you date the start of the series from, of course).

Robert

[Robert Linford]

For convenience, I'm re-posting the local press stuff originally posted on Casebook.



SOUTH LONDON PRESS March 21st 1891

Alleged Stabbing at Kennington Park-road. Strange case.

Thomas Cutbush (27), a singular-looking man, was brought up in the custody of Inspector Race and Sergeant M’Carthy, of the L division, before Mr. Hopkins, upon a charge of feloniously cutting and wounding Florence Grace Johnson, aged 16, residing with her parents in Fentiman-road, Clapham-road. Chief-Inspector Chisholm attended to prosecute on behalf of the Commissioner of Police. The case was a somewhat extraordinary one, and resembled very much the assaults which took place at Brixton and Clapham, where a young man was charged with stabbing females in the public streets. He was said to be of weak mind. Inspector Chisholm said he only asked that the sworn information should be read. That course was followed, and according to that statement it appeared that on the night of Thursday evening week Miss Johnson was walking along Kennington Park-road. She was in company with a female friend, and as they were near Prince’s-square Miss Johnson suddenly received a blow from behind, and felt she had received some injury. She turned round and then saw a man, who ran away. Upon arriving home her garments were found to be cut through, and upon being examined at Kennington-lane police-station by Dr.Farr it was found that she had received a wound on the lower part of her back. The prosecutrix a few days back went to Peckham House Lunatic Asylum, and there identified the prisoner as the man who had assaulted her. The sworn information of a young girl named Isabel Fraser Anderson was also read, and according to it she had been assaulted in a similar manner. She believed the prisoner was the man who assaulted her. Inspector Chisholm asked upon this for a remand, and stated that he took the prisoner into custody on Saturday morning at the lunatic asylum, and upon telling him the charge he made no reply. It appeared that the prisoner had been transferred from St. Saviour’s Union to the asylum as a lunatic, after he had made his escape from the former establishment. The prisoner, who declined to say anything in answer to the charge, was remanded.

APRIL 18th 1891

THE EXTRAORDINARY STABBING OF YOUNG GIRLS.

Early in the day Thomas Cutbush (27), clerk, was arraigned on the charge of maliciously wounding Florence Grace Johnson and attempting to wound Isabella Fraser Anderson.It may be remembered that while a young man named Colicott, whose case was disposed of last session, was awaiting sentence for a similar offence, another scare was created by defendant stabbing a young female in Kennington with a toy dagger, which was exhibited in court. On the case being called, M. de Michele, who had charge of it for the Crown, said the only difficulty was as to whether defendant was competent to plead, by reason of the state of his mind, but Dr. Gilbert, the medical officer of Holloway prison, was in court, and would enlighten the bench upon the matter. Dr. Gilbert was then called, and he stated that after carefully observing the accused he was convinced that although not absolutely insane, he was sufficiently so not to understand the gravamen of the charge brought against him, and was quite incompetent to plead. The jury thereupon issued a pronouncement to that effect, and the defendant was ordered to be detained during her Majesty’s pleasure.






SOUTH LONDON PRESS FEB 7th 1891

The Extraordinary Charge of Stabbing Young Women.

Edwin Colocitt (26), residing at Aldebert Terrace, was charged, on remand, before Mr. Hopkins with stabbing several young women in the neighbourhood of Clapham.Mr. Sims prosecuted for the Treasury, and Mr. W.H. Armstrong defended. Some facts of this extraordinary case have been already reported. Anne Elizabeth Lewis, Stockwell Park-road, stated that on the 8th of January she was walking along South Lambeth-road shortly before 11 o’clock. When near the Library she was stabbed by some one. It was like a pinch or a blow from a skate. The person who did it ran on in front, and she followed. She saw the side of the man’s face. She lost sight of the prisoner. Upon her return home she found that she had been wounded on the left hip, and her clothing had marks of blood upon it. She was examined by Dr. Dorin at Larkhall-lane police-station. At the station she pointed out the prisoner from a number of others as the man who had stabbed her. Dr. Dorin, divisional surgeon, Clapham-road, said he saw the last witness at the police-station. He found she had on the left side, below the hip joint, a clean-cut punctured wound. He examined the clothing, and found it all cut through and corresponding with the wound, which was three-quarters of an inch in length and about a quarter of an inch in depth. In his opinion it had been caused by some sharp instrument, and he did not believe an ordinary penknife would have done it. He afterwards saw a young female named Gray at 9, Stockwell Park Walk, and found she was suffering from a wound of a precisely similar character to Miss Lewis. Her clothing was cut through in a corresponding position to the wound. Miss Gray was employed in the Post Office, but was absent from her duty for a week after this. Laura Horsley, living at 24, Clapham-road, stated that on the 9th January, about 10 o’clock in the evening, she was in the Clapham-road, when she received a blow on the lower part of her back. The man who did it ran off. She felt pain from the blow, and had to ride home. She afterwards found she had a deep cut on the left side, and that her clothing had been cut through. She remained at home for three days in consequence of this injury. She believed the prisoner to be the man who had assaulted her. The young woman Gray also deposed to having been stabbed on the left side of the hip. At home she found her clothing cut through.She had bled from the wound, and was attended by Dr. Dorin. At the station she pointed out the prisoner, whom she believed was the man who had assaulted her. Mr. Armstrong urged that it was entirely a case of mistaken identity. Mr. Hopkins said he had made up his mind, and fully committed the prisoner upon the several charges of unlawfully wounding. The prisoner was admitted to the same bail as before.

[R.J.Palmer]

Robert --Thanks for that; very helpful.


AP, no, I think I have it right; Sir Mel suggested THC was morbidly immitating Colocitt.

“A few week before this, several case of stabbing, or “jobbing,” girls behind had occurred.... The cuts in the girls dresses made by Colocitt were quite different to the cut made by Cutbush (when he wounded Miss Johnson) who was no doubt influenced by a wild desire of morbid imitation.” (Macnaghten Memo).

Let me post the following, and I will discuss its relevance in due course. RP

1891 TIMELINE



Jan 8-12th - Several young women are stabbed in Clapham and Brixton, South London by Edwin Colocitt.

Jan 20 - Edwin Colocitt is captured “red-handed”

Feb 4th - Colocitt’s crimes are sensationalized in the London press

Feb 7th - The Times publishes report of Colocitt’s indictment; he is committed for trial

Feb 14 - Francis Coles murdered

Feb 16-28 Wide coverage of Coles murder in ELO, The Times, Daily News, etc.

Feb 20 - Colocitt’s is found guilty of stabbings & awaits sentencing

Feb 21 - Opening coverage of Coles inquest published in The Times, The ELO, etc.

Feb 24 - 2nd Day of Coles inquest is widley published.

* Feb 26 - Thomas H. Cutbush buys a knife in Houndsditch; application is shortly afterwards made to remove him to Newington Infirmary

Mar 5 - Cutbush climbs wall in Lambeth Workhouse Infirmary (Macnaghten) His aunt refers to this as Newington Infirmary. He runs naked through the streets, but escapes

Mar 7 - East London Advertiser gives coverage of final day of Coles inquest. Also of interest: same paper runs a lurid account of “German Ripper” stating, in part, “His last victim, a woman named Wilden, who was attacked on February 21st, and received a wound measuring about 8in. across the stomach, died on Saturday. Her assailant is described as a man about 30 years of age, with a blonde moustache.”

Mar 7 - Same day. Cutbush stabs Isabel Anderson in buttocks, runs away

*Mar 8 - stabs Grace Florence Johnson; runs away (date of this event is uncertain)

Mar 9 - Cutbush is captured

19 March - Colocitt brought up for sentencing; sentencing delayed with sensational announcement that the jobbings had resumed.

20 March - Colocitt is release to custody of his parents; ordered to hire a keeper

23 March - Cutbush charged on remand; blames Colocitt for his own crimes

14 Apri - Cutbush found in insane; is committed

[A.P. Wolf]

Hey RJP
A timeline is useful... when you include much of what you exclude.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thomas Cutbush actually carried a Bowie knife, concealed in a hidden sheath in his trousers. He had done so for some considerable years before his arrest.
The knife was of interest, made in The Minories, about seven inches in length, and with a peculiar handle featuring seven distinct and elaborate designs of semi-precious stone.
This particular and unusual knife was taken from him by a female relative and hidden behind a sofa.
One imagines that Thomas purchased a replacement soon after.
I don't believe the knife that RJP discusses here was a Bowie knife.

[Chris G.]

. . . .To get the ball rolling, let’s start with an examination of Cutbush’s knife. In his famous memo, Macnaghten writes:

“The knife found on him was bought in Houndsditch about a week before he was detained in the Infirmary.”

As Tommy climbed out of the Lambeth Infirmary on March 5th, this would date the purchase to on or about 26 February, 1891. For convenience, for here on out I’ll use 26 February as the ‘hard date,’ unless other information comes forward.

While one could argue that Macnaghten was either mistaken or covering something up in making this claim , there is direct support for it in the contemporary court reports from three years earlier:

“Witness afterwards found a sheath knife in the pocket of the prisoner’s overcoat. The knife was produced in Court and appeared to be almost new. The blade was about 6in. long with a very sharp curved point.” The Times, 24 March, 1891. (This is the coverage of Cutbush's arraignment and the emphasis is added).

This is the same knife later mention in the papers. For the theory that Cutbush was Jack the Ripper, it is rather damning that he bought this knife directly before his ‘1891 jobbings’---not, I would argue, because Cutbush couldn't have owned a different knife in 1888 --obviously he could have--- but, rather, because it shows that Cutbush’s spree was compulsive and imitative. He bought the knife only days after the Colocitt jobbings had been discussed in the newspapers, and only two weeks after the much discussed murder of Francis Coles. More to follow.

From Wikipedia's entry on the Bowie Knife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowie_knife):

"The most famous version of the Bowie knife was designed by Jim Bowie and presented to Arkansas blacksmith James Black in the form of a carved wooden model in December of 1830. Black produced the knife ordered by Bowie, and at the same time created another based on Bowie's original design but with a sharpened edge on the curved top edge of the blade. [Emphasis mine.] Black offered Bowie his choice and Bowie chose the modified version. Knives like that one, with a blade shaped like that of the Bowie knife, but with half or more of the back edge sharpened, are today called 'Sheffield Bowie' knives, because this blade shape became so popular that cutlery factories in Sheffield, England were mass-producing such knives for export to the U.S. by 1850, usually with a handle made from either hardwood, stag horn, or bone, and sometimes with a guard and other fittings of sterling silver."

The description of the knife that Cutbush had, as described at his arraignment, would seem therefore seem to correspond to the description of a Bowie knife.

Chris

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Chris, the following is a Bowie knife made in The Minories, circa 1880, by Moses & Sons.
Although the detail is slighty different from the Cutbush knife it is essentially the same. I have found the same knife by the same manufacturers with the pattern ascribed to the Cutbush knife but can't capture it yet.
I will.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/minor.jpg

[How Brown]

That knife is no joke...thats one serious looking blade there..

Thanks for the photo,A.P. and description by C.G.

[Natalie Severn]

It may be worth reminding ourselves here of a few of the highlights of Thomas Cutbush"s " career" of violence, as reported in the Sun newspaper series,of Jan/Feb 1894, where they sensationally claimed Thomas Cutbush,believed to be the nephew of Supt.Charles Cutbush ,to be the Ripper.
I believe it is worth viewing Thomas Cutbush against his reported background.

CV re violent or paranoid behaviour:

According to the Sun newspaper

- Thomas had attempted to murder his mother,his aunt and a servant at their home in Clapham,by slitting their throats.

-he was rather narcisistic and constantly checked his appearance in a mirror.On one such occasion one of his co workers,an elderly man,jokingly commented about this vain behaviour , whereupon Cutbush grabbed hold of him and threw him down stairs,coolly telling his colleagues he had only just found the man lying there unconscious.However when the man began to recover from his injuries a fortnight later,he told a very different tale.

Thomas Cutbush wrote letters complaining that certain doctors were trying to poison him.This in fact seems to have been something of a "family" trait because it was reporteda little later ,in his Uncle"s orbituary, ie Supt Charles Cutbush"s orbituary, when referring to his suicide by shooting himself,that Supt Cutbush had begun writing strange letters about Fenians who he believed were trying to poison his water supply.

-One of these Doctors Thomas had begun corresponding with was fearful of his life,having had Thomas Cutbush stealthilly arrive behind him in his surgery,brandishing his knife one day and threatening to kill him.

-Thomas was also obsessed with medical books,particularly with sections in them which depicted women"s reproductive organs.

-When officers searched his room they found blood stained clothing which had been stuffed up a chimney.

-his mother and his aunt were panic stricken because of his nocturnal habit of disappearing until 3 or 4 in the morning and returning " covered in mud"![was it to hide blood?]

-Thomas had contracted VD just prior to the Whitechapel murders in 1888.


These are just a few of the details from the Sun series.There is quite a bit more---for example how both the prosecution and defence in his "jobbing" case believed he was Jack the Ripper----and said so.


Best
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Yes How, this is some 'toy dagger' eh?
This is the very make of Bowie style knife which was removed from Thomas by a relative and hidden behind a piano to be later recovered by the police.

Thanks for the timely reminder of the Sun articles, Natalie, and here is what the Sun had to say about this knife:

'The knife is one of the Bowie pattern, the sharp blade tapering to a point, being nearly 6in in length, and also having a kind of sword hilt. The black handle is knotted, seven points on either being tipped with pearl. The knife bears the name of a firm in the Minories.'

My understanding is that these particular knives were distributed by Moses & Son of the Minories and Aldgate in their Victorian equivalent to a modern department store, selling just about everything.
I might be wrong but I don't believe they had a branch in Houndsditch.
As is obvious the knife is not the normal style or type of knife that one would buy in a hardware store, but rather an expensive and well made piece of deadly equipment perhaps only available to the wealthier class.

[Robert Linford]

AP, it doesn't exactly sound like an impulse buy, does it - bought solely to compete with Colocitt.

Robert

[A.P. Wolf]

Exactly Robert
this was a very seriously expensive knife, even without the pearl highlights and additions; so it's no wonder that a police inspector decided to keep it for himself rather than giving it up to the authorised holders of such weapons at Scotland Yard.
I think there is an attempt here to portray the weapon as being not much more than a toy which a disturbed boy purchased on a whim or fancy from a hardware store as he was passing.
The weapon speaks for itself.
And the owner.

[Chris G.]

Hi AP

What, if I might ask, is the current state of play, in regard to the relationship, or lack thereof, between the unbalanced retired Superintendent Charles Cutbush, who committed suicide by shooting himself, and the suspect Thomas Haynes Cutbush?

I gathered some time back from reading what had been dredged up by various researchers, including yourself, that he was not a direct nephew of the police official but a more remote relative, if a relative at all. Is that still thought to be so, and has the relationship between the two men been elucidated by now?

In other words, it seems to me, Macnaghten's need to name other Ripper suspects in the memoranda to deflect attention from Thomas Cutbush would seem to less if there was no close familial relationship except possible embarrassment through the coincidence of surnames.

Any thoughts from you or others? Thanks in advance, AP et al.

Chris

[A.P. Wolf]

Chris
Debra and Robert have spent years trying to firm up the actual relationship between Thomas and Charles Henry Cutbush, so they are really the best people to comment on that question.
I, poor fool I am, have always accepted the fact that the Macnaghten Memo being written was the most conclusive proof that Thomas and Charles Henry were directly related.
There are elements to the Sun reports which do show very strong connective issues between Thomas Cutbush and an intimate friend or relation at Scotland Yard; and that these same issues are then addressed, and confirmed by the investigations of Macnaghten's own officers, seem to me to confirm that there was a strong relationship between Thomas Cutbush and Charles Henry Cutbush, but to call that relationship a blood relationship is I think beyond me, or anyone else, at this moment in time.
I think it well worth discussing the elements in the Sun reports which are then later confirmed by Scotland Yard.

[R.J.Palmer]

“The weapon speaks for itself.” -APW

And I think Macnaghten speaks for himself, so let me quote him again:

“The knife found on him was bought in Houndsditch about a week before he was detained in the Infirmary.”

A now, from the contemporary court report of Cutbush’s jobbings:

The knife was produced in Court and appeared to be almost new.”
(The Times, 24 March, 1891)

The knife was bought on or about February 26th, 1891, and used to stab two women on the buttocks on March 7/8th, 1891. Inbetween he was detained in an infirmary. Sounds fairly compulsive to me.

Houndsditch was filled with any number of “Fancy Goods Dealers,” “general dealers”, and “Fancy jewelry dealers.” A stroll through the 1891 Census will confirm this. See St. Botolph Aldgate District 2. One will notice running off of Houndsditch is a “Cutler Street” and a “Cutlery Way.” I suspect this is because the area traditionally made & sold cutlery and other tools. Indeed, in 1881 and 1891 there was still a wholesale tool and cutlery maker at No. 47 Houndsditch. His name was Donaldson.

I also think the optimal phrase in Natalie’s post is “according to the Sun newspaper.” How many of these tales can be independently confirmed? We are supposed to believe that Cutbush kicked an old man down a set of stairs in 1888, and that the old man landed in a coma, but eventually came out of it to implicate the young T.H.C. All well and good. Is there any evidence that he was charged with murderous assault? If not, why not? Is there any court or civil case that confirms this event? Meanwhile, we really do have a contemporary police suspect who kicked a man down a set of stairs, and in his case, the contemporary court reports do exist. He is, however, usually written-off as a harmless homosexual quack.

I am also curious about the claim:

There is quite a bit more---for example how both the prosecution and defence in his "jobbing" case believed he was Jack the Ripper----and said so.


May I ask the source for this statement?

The contemporary court reports of Cutbush’s ‘jobbings’ reprinted in The Times mention nothing whatsoever about Jack the Ripper. A highly curious omission if they "said so."

[A.P. Wolf]

RJP,
so you reckon a Bowie knife with pearl studded detail could be bought on any street corner in Whitechapel?
Do you know what that knife cost in 1888 and what it is worth today?
If Thomas was confined to an asylum and stripped naked, one assumes that they would have found the Bowie knife and the sheath he hid it in.
So are we talking about three knives here or just the one?
The one that he had when he was placed in an asylum.
The one that a relative hid behind the sofa.
Or the one you claim was found on him when arrested with the jobbing offences?
Surely he only had the sheath by then and not the Bowie knife?
I think you should go for the toy dagger.

[R.J.Palmer]

I realize the following won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, but I’d like to provide a link to a blog by Loren Coleman, author of the book “The Copy Cat Effect.” Coleman had previously wrote a 1987 book called “Suicide Clusters,” showing that waves of suicides often follow coverage of a celebrity’s death by suicide. His thesis is that sensational media coverage of crimes, suicides, or other types of violence can be shown to create a spasm of imitations, and he has some important things to say about the rash of school shootings in North America, and about the media's role in creating crime. He is often consulted by American journalists. This is a serious topic of our day, and not be dismissed lightly by those wishing to protect their pet suspects.

http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_archive.html

No doubt some here will note that Coleman also wrote about crypto-zoology, but both his books on media-induced violence were very well received in a number of professional journals, and his thoughts are thoroughly backed-up with statistics and citations. He has a masters degree in anthropology. Of particular interest is Coleman’s idea that there is a sort of ‘incubation period’ between the sensational event and those who imitate it, and I think the timeline (earlier in this thread) shows that Cutbush had a similar ‘incubation period.’ AP, in his engrossing study, portrays Cutbush as an independent lunatic, and as a potential Jack the Ripper, but there is another way of looking at him. Cutbush was clearly part of an imitative ‘cluster.’

In Oct 1890 was the Mary Pearcey affair with its sensational coverage, including brief speculation that it was a crime of the Ripper. After an ‘incubation period,’ we saw the arrival of Colocitt in January, 1891. Colocitt’s crimes have been under-researched but at least one report unearthed by Chris Scott shows that they received coverage as far away as America, and the London coverage, I suspect, has been under appreciated. On the heels of this came the murder of Francis Coles in February, and a veritable blitzkrieg of new media attention to the Whitechapel Murders. Only following on the heels of all this did Cutbush emerge as a ‘jobber.’ As the timeline indicates, his four day spree took place at the very moment the news coverage of the Coles murder and the Colocitt court case had reached its crescendo. AP compares Cutbush to Richard Chase. I couldn’t agree more. Both are young men suffering from pre-existing toxic psychosis, and both committed obvious and undisguised sprees in imitation of events that were then playing themselves out in the popular press. Chase was influenced by the Hillside Strangler case in San Francisco, and Chase’s timeline is very similar to Cutbush’s and is illustrative of the principle.

[SirRobertAnderson]

I believe it is worth viewing Thomas Cutbush against his reported background.


And of course there is the skin complexion angle - I'd cast him for Mr. Blotchy Face in a heartbeat.

[Chris G.]

It may be worth reminding ourselves here of a few of the highlights of Thomas Cutbush"s " career" of violence, as reported in the Sun newspaper series,of Jan/Feb 1894, where they sensationally claimed Thomas Cutbush,believed to be the nephew of Supt.Charles Cutbush ,to be the Ripper.

I believe it is worth viewing Thomas Cutbush against his reported background.

CV re violent or paranoid behaviour:

According to the Sun newspaper

- Thomas had attempted to murder his mother,his aunt and a servant at their home in Clapham,by slitting their throats.

-he was rather narcisistic and constantly checked his appearance in a mirror.On one such occasion one of his co workers,an elderly man,jokingly commented about this vain behaviour , whereupon Cutbush grabbed hold of him and threw him down stairs,coolly telling his colleagues he had only just found the man lying there unconscious.However when the man began to recover from his injuries a fortnight later,he told a very different tale.

Thomas Cutbush wrote letters complaining that certain doctors were trying to poison him.This in fact seems to have been something of a "family" trait because it was reporteda little later ,in his Uncle"s orbituary, ie Supt Charles Cutbush"s orbituary, when referring to his suicide by shooting himself,that Supt Cutbush had begun writing strange letters about Fenians who he believed were trying to poison his water supply.

-One of these Doctors Thomas had begun corresponding with was fearful of his life,having had Thomas Cutbush stealthilly arrive behind him in his surgery,brandishing his knife one day and threatening to kill him.

-Thomas was also obsessed with medical books,particularly with sections in them which depicted women"s reproductive organs.

-When officers searched his room they found blood stained clothing which had been stuffed up a chimney.

-his mother and his aunt were panic stricken because of his nocturnal habit of disappearing until 3 or 4 in the morning and returning " covered in mud"![was it to hide blood?]

-Thomas had contracted VD just prior to the Whitechapel murders in 1888.


These are just a few of the details from the Sun series.There is quite a bit more---for example how both the prosecution and defence in his "jobbing" case believed he was Jack the Ripper----and said so.


Best
Natalie

And of course there is the skin complexion angle - I'd cast him for Mr. Blotchy Face in a heartbeat.

Also he does have CUT in his name. . . :thumbsupbud:

Chris

[Robert Linford]

Hi Chris

In order to find the precise relationship - if any - between THC and CHC, we'd have to get a fair number of certificates, I should think, and the relationship would be so distant that I'm wondering if it would be worth it. But as regards Sir M's motivations, well, if he thought, however erroneously, that THC was CHC's nephew, then from the point of view of motivation it makes no difference, does it?

Robert

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris

In order to find the precise relationship - if any - between THC and CHC, we'd have to get a fair number of certificates, I should think, and the relationship would be so distant that I'm wondering if it would be worth it. But as regards Sir M's motivations, well, if he thought, however erroneously, that THC was CHC's nephew, then from the point of view of motivation it makes no difference, does it?

Robert

Hi Robert

Your line of reasoning has a ring of truth to it. Also Sir M could have been as "right" in what he knew about the relationship between the Cutbushes as that Monty Druitt was a "doctor." :)

Chris

[Robert Linford]

Yes Chris, one does have to wonder about Macnaghten. He also says that Thomas's father died when he was quite young, which we know isn't the case. Of course, it may be that Macnaghten was misinformed by Chisholm, Race and McCarthy, who in turn may have been misinformed by Thomas's mother (she may have found it embarrassing to admit that her husband had abandoned her, and so invented the death). But in the case of the uncle-nephew relationship, I would have thought that Macnaghten was the ideal man to have a word with ex-Supt Cutbush about the Sun's allegations. Yet he seems not to have bothered.

Robert

[A.P. Wolf]

Well RJP, the concept and idea of legions of severely disturbed young men leap-frogging ove one another in imitative pattern is one that I have always found particulary endearing and close to my heart.
What is it they say about art and nature?
That they are mere imitations of a singular theme?

Morbid imitation.
I like that RJP.
What bothers me though - and it bothers me to a degree that is bothersome - is the sudden and almighty swerve evident in young Thomas' behaviour at the time of the alleged 'jobbings'.
For here we had a young man who was operating under a very strict code of conduct in the years leading up to these alleged 'jobbings'.
Asleep in his garret all day; or studying his medical books; or making up cute little drawings of women with their guts on their knees... the little fellow only emerged when darkness had fallen, to leap from windows and walls and then disappear into the night about whatever business it was the strange young man did... to return in the early hours of the morning before the sun came up, covered in mud.
And not a single witness ever saw him, not one witness could bear testimony to the doings of Thomas, the Vampire of Whitechapel.
He was truly a creature of the night, unseen and unheard as he scampered and scappered hither and thither on his bare feet through the dark Whitechapel night.
And then suddenly, after years of this vampire life, Thomas turns his entire routine and life upside down, and begins to charge around the streets in broad daylight, clutching a large Bowie knife and stabbing women in the butt in front of dozens of witnessess?

Er?
Nah. I don't buy it.

No seriously, something is not quite right here.
Could we be looking at a case of mimicry here rather than morbid imitation?

[A.P. Wolf]

And RJP, seeing you were kind enough to construct a timeline for Thomas I thought you might like to include the following information which I posted in March 2006:

'In view of Macnaghten’s statement in the Memo - that the whereabouts of Thomas Cutbush could not ascertained on the nights of the murders - I believe us to be on very firm ground in saying that Thomas could not possibly have been confined to an asylum or other institution in the critical months of 1888.
Taking this into regard with the series of reports concerning Thomas Cutbush that appeared in the ‘Sun’ in February 1894 we are then able to place Thomas Cutbush right into the heart of Whitechapel during those critical months.
From the ‘Sun’:
‘We are able to trace the whole career of the man who committed those crimes, we can give the name of his employers, their places of business, the terms of his service there, and the incidents of his connection with them - incidents which clearly show that he was in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel at the time when the murders were committed; that he developed tendencies even in his employment of homicidal insanity; and finally he was at liberty and close to Whitechapel during all that period when the murders were committed.’
Better than that, the ‘Sun’ is able to give us an exact date for the vicious attack Cutbush made on the old gentleman at the warehouse in Whitechapel, 24th July 1888.
As it took the old gentleman ‘some few weeks’ to recover from his injuries he was not able to explain until then that Cutbush had actually attacked him and the fall had not been accidental.
Therefore Thomas Cutbush would not have lost the employment at the Whitechapel warehouse until sometime in late August of 1888.
That will do me.
I believe this combination puts young Cutbush more in the frame than he has ever been before.'

My pleasure, RJP.

[Natalie Severn]

I have always been surprised at the extent to which Thomas Cutbush has been "written out" of any serious discussion on the Ripper.For example on reading Macnaghten"s memorandum my first question is not who did Old Mac think the Ripper was then but rather,"What is all this about?' Why was it written in February 1894 a few years after the events?Who is he saying wasnt The Ripper and Why?
And the answer it seemed to me is that ,yes, it was written to repudiate the February 1894 claims of The Sun newspaper that Thomas Cutbush was the Ripper.Not really to determine who the Ripper was.So that was its "political purpose" if you like.Probably Macnaghten had been asked to supply information to the Home Secretarybecause of the Sun"s articles, but it cant have sat terribly comfortably with him when he understood that this very same chap [Thomas Cutbush] that the Sun was sounding off about was none other than the nephew of Supt [executive]Charles Cutbush----who had been one of Macnaghten"s own Police Chiefs, a colleague with a first rate police record who had even worked on the Polly Nichols case retiring in August 1891, only a couple of months after Thomas"s spectacular escape from an asylum .
But of equal importance I believe was Macnaghten"s conviction that the Whitechapel murderer would have been unable to go on after his "awful glut" in Miller"s Ct.-whereupon we start to see why he believed the Thames suicide ,Montague Druitt was the most likely killer.
Anyway to cut a long story short Cutbush was promptly binned by Macnaghten without an explanation unless we accept that Cutbush"s knife attacks were simply what Macnaghten termed "morbid imitations" and there Thomas has remained ever since.

Quite frankly it seems an absurdly simplistic explanation of Thomas"s behaviour andthe severity of his mental illness-----even if all we do is take a look of the knife he used[the one in the picture AP provided] and ask ourselves what would happen today if some fellow went round attacking women with a knife that looked like that in the streets of London?
What sort of a chap would do something like that? Surely not one who just wanted to act the goat.
Everything the Sun says about Cutbush indicates he was seriously mentally ill and that he suffered paranoid delusions about doctors wanting to poison him etc.He also wrote them threatening letters ,including threatening one doctor with a knife---[or a gun].
He carried out a classic psychotic attack, in sang-froid, on a fellow employee ,throwing the man downstairs because he had felt slighted and walked away from it without a backward glance. He became violent and attacked four of his warders in order to break free from the asylum he was being held at and showing exactly the same sang-froid displayed in the attack on the elderly man ,scaled an eight foot wall wearing only his shirt,arriving in the street below and causing a huge hue and cry from the shocked crowd who began running after him only for him to calmly disappear into one of the houses reappearing respectably decked out in a check jacket, brown trousers, hat and shoes ready to slide off out of sight.
To take up the point made by RJ concerning the reliability of the press reports in The Sun; It is not possible for a National newspaper,then or now, to have simply made the whole thing up .The Editorials stress throughout that they are unable, because of the prevailing libel laws to name Cutbush[we now know its him through Macnaghten] and they were well aware they could face having their newspaper shut down as well as heavy fines if they revealed the identity of their suspect or caused the "respectable" relatives of the suspect to be identified.In fact a great deal of care appears to have gone into the series of articles.

Best Wishes

Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Quite right, Natalie.
The Sun was beyond reproach in its coverage of Thomas Cutbush.
What is interesting is that Macnaghten actually confirms many of the details in the Sun reports through evidence gained by his own police officers; but more importantly, Macnaghten actually confirms that Thomas was living at home during the Autumn of terror and his movements could not be accounted for on the nights of the murders.
Which does of course mean that Thomas was not confined to an institution in 1888.
I'm still working on the points of similarity between the memo and the Sun reports, and there are many.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi AP,
That was something I noticed myself that Macnaghten"s account bears many similarities to The Sun"s.For example that Cutbush had been employed as a clerk and traveller in the Tea Trade at THE MINORIES and subsequently canvassed for a Directory in The East End.He apparently bore a good character up to that point but since he contracted syphilis in about 1888 he led an idle and useless life.His brain became affected and he believed people were trying to poison him.He wrote to Lord Grimthorpe and others-even to the Treasury -complaining of a Dr Brooks,of Westminster Bridge Road,whom he had threatened to shoot for having supplied him with bad medicines and there is more AP ,which you will no doubt find.He did disagree with some of the Sun"s statement but these were mostly on technicalities about the earlier and later murders[Tabram and Coles]
I heard a strange story by an art historian on the radio recently about Pablo Picasso becoming full of venom about prostitutes because he had contracted syphilis in about 1910 as a result of their services.Apparently the famous " Les Desmoiselles D" Avignon" was his vicious attempt to attack the sisterhood in his art!
Best
Natalie

[R.J.Palmer]

Thanks to Natalie and AP for their lively posts. My concern, however, wasn’t merely for the accuracy of the Sun’s reports, but, more specifically, for the accuracy of the following statement:

"both the prosecution and defence in his "jobbing" case believed he was Jack the Ripper----and said so."

Once again, what is the source for this startling claim??

The contemporary coverage of Cutbush’s arraignment and committal can be found in The Times on following dates:

March 24, 1891

April 15, 1891


Not so much as a peep about the Whitechapel Murders! It seems odd to me that, considering AP’s strenuous and laudable efforts in recent weeks to save us from the myopic, that he can suddenly find no surplus energy to challenge even the wildest of statements when they refer to his own suspect.

Something is rotten in Denmark.

[R.J.Palmer]

AP, old friend, thanks for repinting your earlier post. Let’s look again at what the Sun report actually stated about the incident in the stairwell.


From The Sun, 14 February, 1894:

“A STARTLING INCIDENT”

“On July 24, 1888, exactly a fortnight before the date of the first Whitechapel murders, which occurred on August 7, 1888, a young man succeeded in obtaining employment at a firm in the immediate district of the murders. His age was about 27. He was swarthy in complexion, and his frame was slight and wiry. His only strong peculiarity, or eccentricity, as it was then thought, was a desire to advise all with whom he came in contact as to the treatment of certain horrible diseases. He was noticed to have possessed himself of certain medicines and lotions which he kept in his pockets. These he frequently partook of during the day, and it was remarkable that, while seemingly in good bodily health, it was his practice from time to time to retire, and when come upon suddenly, was found to be anointing his face with washes and ointments in front of a glass. This, and a faculty for drawing caricatures and anatomical figures, were his principal distinctions when not discussing nasty illnesses.
“One day, an elderly official of the firm, noticing that the young man was employed anointing his face in front of the looking glass, said, in a bantering way quite innocent of malice, "I have known much better looking men than you who did not spend half as much time in looking at themselves."
“No particular notice was taken of this incident, but when the elderly gentleman was proceeding upstairs, to his immense surprise, the young man, who up to this had never shown any violent propensities, sprang out of a dark corner where he had been lying in wait and hurled him to the bottom of the stone stairs, where he lay insensible in a pool of blood, which flowed from a terrible cut in his head. When people came upon the scene, the author of this outrageous assault remarked, "Poor gentleman, he has fallen downstairs."
“This apparently ingenuous observation disarmed all suspicion, and it was not till the injured man came to himself weeks afterwards that the true facts were made known.
“It is worthy of note at this point that the SERIES OF MURDERS which started immediately after his employment in the Whitechapel firm, and continued in almost regular intervals, as mysteriously ceased with his departure and were not heard of again for eight months.”


So, as you can see, your 'July 24th' date refers to T.H.C.’s hiring date and not the date of the alleged assault on the elderly coworker. It’s all rather vague, but it appears that the Sun is claiming that Tommy was given the sack shortly after the Kelly murder. This would date old Rip Van Winkle’s voyage down the stairwell to sometime in October, and his resurrection from his coma to sometime after November 9th. Rather different than “the Sun is able to give us an exact date for the vicious attack Cutbush made on the old gentleman at the warehouse” et.

I think you can appreciate my concern. A man claims to have been “hurled down a set of stairs’ in what the Sun describes as “the immediate district of the murders” and awakens to point the accusing finger at young Tommy Cutbush. This grave accusation of murderous assault is now hovering over Cutbush’ head on what might well be called the ‘morning after’ the depravity of Miller’s Court. All eyes are now on this young hooligan. One might wish to assume that he would have received no small attention from the police, the media, the old man’s attorney, etc., yet there appears to be no mention of this event in the contemporary court reports--- at least none that I can find.

Perhaps because it didn’t happen?

And we can’t even blame Sir Mel for covering it up, as he won’t take office for another eight months. Or thereabouts.

[A.P. Wolf]

RJP
the only thing rotten in Denmark is their beer, which is why they export it of course.
Natalie is making reference to the Sun reports, which you knew anyway, which are contemporary reports, as you know.
Robert has posted other contemporary reports on the case, as you also know.
I would respectfully suggest you read 'em, and then you wouldn't have so many questions.
If you are planning to drink Danish beer then I have the following suggestion.
Close your eyes, put corks in your ears and up your nose, use a straw and just imagine that you have published a paper that gives a world exclusive of an interview with a Jack the Ripper suspect.
And mine's a double brandy.
No ice.
You can have the slice.

[A.P. Wolf]

Hey RJP, what do you drink?
Because I want some of that.
If I could stretch out an incident like you do from July to December then I could probably live forever.
I like your testy attitude here, RJP, but am concerned that you might be getting too involved in this thread and ignoring some very important issues that you might need to address elsewhere.
I would hate to see your real work suffer on my account.
I thought you were working on a paper concerning Tumblety's finances?
Perhaps I should help you with that?

[R.J.Palmer]

What are you saying old boy, to keep my nose out of where it doesn’t belong?

I’m beginning to see how it floats, AP. The last few weeks have been very illuminating. Offer legitimate questions about your theory, or reprint the actual reports that you’ve been misquoting, and you suddenly lose all desire to ‘keep it impersonal.’ I’ll try to tip my hat and kowtow in the future.

The Sun’s statements are not ‘contemporary.’ They are written three years after-the-fact (6 years in regards to the murders), in the vaguest of terms, and with a myriad of statements that cannot be confirmed or can be disproven outright. The actual contemporary reports of Cutbush’s jobbing case make no reference whatsover to any suspicions entertained by either the prosecution, nor his defense in regards to the Ripper murders. More damning yet, the internal report submitted by Macnaghten, cross referenced with the known careers of Race and Chisholm, show no investigation of Cutbush for complicity in the murders took place until 1891! In short, such statements are poppicock.

Ultimately, it is difficult not to conclude that the Sun piece was written by a bloke who heard of the old jobbing case and wanted to make a few quick quid by painting-up THC as the Ripper. The same sort of thing that still goes on today. I’ve heard that pecuniary motivations are often at the root of such things, even among those who state otherwise.

[Natalie Severn]

You know RJ,even if you discount the poor chap who was pushed down the stairs ,you have still to deal with the Cutbush who steals into his doctors surgery brandishing a gun over an imaginary attack and demonises others in the press.This is still the same Thomas Cutbush who goes out on London"s streets with a dangerously sharp knife and attacks women from behind etc........ but I forgive you because your post referring to R. V. W. had me in stitches as well a sudden vision of AP, alias Brer Rabbit , lying very low in the brambles,plotting.
Night All.
Natalie

[Natalie Severn]

However much you try to rubbish Cutbush,RJ,the fact is that Tumblety never even got close to being thought the Ripper by the Sun or any other English paper,Cutbush was in fact the only suspect to get National coverage as being believed to be the Ripper.
By contrast, despite the papers in America doing their damndest to point the finger, it actually all fell flat as a pancake with Tumblety happily continuing to make his pimple ointments and herb teas .
And dont forget,it was Cutbush and not Tumblety, who in 1891 was sent for life to Broadmoor Hospital for the criminally insane .
That speaks volumes .
Natalie

[R.J.Palmer]

Natalie - I don't find that a strong argument. Tumblety was named as a 'very likely' suspect by one of the most important figures in Scotland Yard in the 1880s. Ditto for Kosminski. Whether this sits well with you or not, them is the facts. Cutbush, meanwhile, was named in a sensation newspaper exposé by a yellow journalist. There is no direct evidence of serious police suspicion, though I am willing to entertain the hypothesis that Race may have held some doubts. I'll take the head of Section D over The Sun any day of the week.

I'm afraid that I don't see Cutbush' s trip to Broadmoor quite in the way that you and AP do. A naked, foaming, lunatic runs through the streets and steals a loaf of bread. He is committed for fifteen years and dies under medical treatment. Was his lengthy stretch due to the fact that he pinched a loaf of bread? No. Because the police suspected he had killed Lord Kitchener? No. His lengthy stretch was due to the fact that he was outwardly and obviously totally crackers, and did not respond to treatment. His confinement is not proof of wider suspicion, since his known behavior explains it well enough. That's how I see it. And I am not 'rubbishing' the Cutbush theory. If AP can nail him, so be it. But he ought not misstate the facts in trying to do it, all the while turning around and making rather nasty suggestions about people who are working other angles. Stewart's earier references to 'black' and 'kettle' and 'pot' certainly apply here (!)

It is worth remembering that we Yanks are merely guests here in fathoming your national mystery. You have every advantage. However, I think anyone who has lived in America over the past 20 years cannot fail to be struck how the media's coverage of violent crime spawns imitators. It is a very disturbing thing. The recent murderer at Virginia Tech stopped in the middle of his spree to post a message to NBC news. He openly made a comparison between his crimes and the horrific shootings at Columbine High School some years ago. He watched the media and it somehow helped 'incubate' his own crimes. At Cutbush's arraignment he, too, openly made reference to Colocitt's "jobbings." Clearly he had watched those crimes play themselves out in the news media. This is no joking matter with me. You'll have to trust me on that. "Morbid imitation' is a very real thing, a very frightening thing, and it needs to be addressed seriously. Studying its implications is certainly more important than studying the Whitechapel murders.


If I could stretch out an incident like you do from July to December then I could probably live forever.

AP, no offense, my friend,and I do hope you live forever, but I'm starting to have doubts about your reading comprehension.

The Sun reports lists July 24th as the date Tommy was hired.

"On July 24th, 1888....a young man succeeded in obtaining employment at a firm..."

Plain and simple

The approximate date of Cutbush getting the sack is made a couple of paragraphs later:

“...the SERIES OF MURDERS which started immediately after his employment in the Whitechapel firm, and continued in almost regular intervals, as mysteriously ceased with his departure and were not heard of again for eight months.”

The murders 'ceased' with the Murder of Mary Kelly on Nov. 9th, and therefore so did Cutbush's employment sometime direcly afterward. At least that is what the Sun is claiming. The Ripper was not 'heard again' for 'eight months' (ie., when Alice McKenzie was killed on 17 July, 1889).

This stretches Cutbsush's employment from July 24th,1888 to Nov/Dec 1888. The implied claim, I think, is that he was given the sack when R.V.W. awoke from his snooze sometime after the Kelly murder.

Hope that explains it. Now go pull those corks out of your ears and the sleep out of your eyes, Rip.

[Robert Linford]

Hi RJ

I thought that the old man was thrown down the stairs because he wouldn't say his prayers.

Anyway, you are quite right when you say that we have no proof that the attack on the old man actually happened, or happened in the manner described. However, I don't think that the argument "If the attack had happened, there would have been a court case - therefore it didn't happen" will work. It would have been Thomas's word against the old man's, and while the firm would doubtless have taken the word of an old and possibly long-serving employee against that of a newcomer, the police would have required harder evidence.

Robert

[Robert Linford]

Just to follow up, I forgot to say that the really jarring note, for me, is the idea of the old man lying for several weeks in what was apparently a coma. Did the Victorians know how to treat people in comas?

At any rate, he seems to have sustained a serious head injury, which would have made his story of the Cutbush attack a problematic piece of testimony as far as the police were concerned. It also makes it problematic as far as we are concerned. As usual with this case, everything cuts both ways.

Robert

[Natalie Severn]

RJ,
In the Autumn of 1888 The Times Newspaper was offering vast sums of money to "on the run" American based Sheridan, an Invincible plotter of the Phoenix Park murders, to get him to come to Britain to give evidence against Parnell.Sums of £40,000 to Sheridan and £20,000 were offered to Millen to try to induce them to come over here.
Littlechild had been up to his ears chasing Moroney around London gathering evidence for Anderson et al in the build up to the Special Commission of October 1888 and afterwards given evidence in watching a house in Lewisham where Parnell and Kitty O"Shea. were trysting
Now the outcome of all this frantic effort on behalf of Robert Anderson/Littlechild,The Times and the Government was that both sides were able to claim victory. Parnell was awarded some £5,000 out of court damages in an action brought for libel in Edinburgh .
But crucially, and especially since you are so determined to believe that The Sun Newspaper
was just a yellow rag that was somehow miraculously able to flout libel laws and say anything it liked about Thomas Cutbush ,The TIMES spent £250,000 in legal fees in its efforts to avoid being done for libel over the lies it had printed about Parnell.
You are mistaken about The Sun.It was a perfectly respectable Broadsheet newspaper,not so" quality" perhaps as The Times appears to have misguidedly prided itself on - but not that different in any important way.Copies of both The Sun and The Times are there for all to see in Colindale if you doubt my word on this

I believe that Littlechild was far too busy in 1888 gathering evidence to avoid a potentially massive libel action regarding The Times Newspaper and other parties, to be have paid much attention to The Whitechapel Murders at the time or to have any real credibilty compiling a Who "s Who regarding the Whitechapel Murders in 1913.
Best Wishes
Natalie

[Robert Linford]

Here are a couple of items showing the Sun in action. In the first from Nov 4 93 they seem to be on to something. The second from Nov 28 95 might be deemed more sensationalist.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Robert.As can be clearly seen from the two reports you have posted the Sun of the 1890"s combined serious commentary dealing with matters raised in Westminster in the first article you posted and a more Dickensian or rather stunt type journalism popularised by Stead.But all the papers at the time,including the Times and the Telegraph,appear to have adopted this form of journalism-as exemplified above regarding the letters to The Times about Parnell written by Robert Anderson.
Its worth remembering that while The Times paid dearly for what it published about Parnell- the Pigott forgeries etc and there is plenty of evidence
on this,there does not appear to have been a murmer raised either in parliament or from the relatives of Cutbush that mentions a libel case.


By the way RJ up until just prior to Autumn 1888,Thomas Cutbush was described as " of good character" by his employees.In fact it looks like his attack on the elderly man was a pointer to the onset of his mental illness because it was soon after that he lost his job.
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Yes, sorry about that RJP, when I get on the wrong side of the brandy bottle I believe myself to be a giant on a great white horse, galloping so fast that even my two trusty greyhounds can't keep up with me.

Good point about the date, RJP, I'd originally read it in a different way but you are certainly on the money there.
However when you look at the Sun articles as a whole, rather than slices, there does appear to be a problem matching those dates of employment - late July through to early November - with the reported behaviour of Thomas during those same months.
Look at these comments from the Sun, and you might get my drift:
'This man (Cutbush) was employed in several offices, in none of them for a long time.'
And:
'At the time of the Whitechapel Murders this tendency had so far developed that he spent most of every day in bed; and it was not till nine or ten o'clock at night that he ever went forth.'

It is difficult to imagine that anyone would have employed Thomas for four months under these extraordinary circumstances, that was unless of course he was working a night shift at the tea warehouse?
Toiling through the long night, ascribbling in ledgers... and sharing a cup of tea with Morris and a passing policeman?
Ah... but there my fancy takes flight again.
But anyways I do struggle with the concept of Thomas being gainfully employed by anyone during 1888, but it appears he was.
I'm just grateful that we do have a date which places young Thomas in the very heart of Whitechapel in the months of the Whitechapel Murders, and inside a building that is associated with the deaths of at least three of the victims, when not four.

When looking at the timeline and dates offered in the Sun reports it is worth remembering that they counted later victims, such as Alice McKenzie in July of 1889, which fits the 8 month break in the crimes they give from the murder of Mary Jane Kelly.

[R.J.Palmer]

Natalie - In regards to the last statement in your post, it appears that your source is Macnaghten, so let’s return and have a look at what MM wrote. From the memo:

“He [Cutbush] had been employed as a clerk and traveler in the Tea trade at the Minories, & subsequently canvassed for a Directory in the East End, during which time he bore a good character.”

Yet, you write: “until just prior to Autumn 1888,Thomas Cutbush was described as " of good character" by his employees.”

Does the word ‘prior’ really apply here? According to The Sun, Cutbush’s employment at the Tea trade was July-November 1888. Since he ‘subsequently’ canvassed for a directory, the very source you are using actually indicates that the ‘good character’ he bore continued after July-Nov, 1888. No 'prior' to it, which is particularly odd if he was tossing old men down stairwells.

And hasn’t AP unearthed another apparent muddle? At one point Cutbush is supposed to be out wandering the streets at all hours with muddy legs. Yet certainly it doesn’t appear that this can date to 1888 if he was gainfully employed during that era.

And here’s another statement by Macnaghten that has always bothered me:

“It was found impossible to ascertain his movements on the nights of the Whitechapel Murders.”

I think we have to accept that Macnaghten means this in a general sort of way, much like the allegations against Aaron Kosminski: “he was the lone occupant of certain premises after nightfall.” It should be remembered that the investigation of Inspectors Race and Chisholm didn’t take place until 1891. So Sir Mel doesn’t mean that Cutbush’s whereabouts at exactly 1.35 a.m. on the night of the ‘double event’ couldn’t be traced, he only means that the Met couldn’t confirm Cutbush's whereabouts in London at the time of the murders. A very odd thing to say if Cutbush had been identified as working in an East End warehouse the whole time, and even odder since his hire date of July 24, 1888 was confirmed. Surely it would have been painfully obvious that he was in the East End the whole time??

Or was he?

The apparent confusion about his whereabouts must surely bring us back to the original description of Cutbush’s 1888 job:

“He had been employed as a clerk and traveler in the Tea trade”

We haven't heard much about that description of THC being a 'traveler.' In an age before fax machines, computers, and the wide use of the telephone, all such firms employed a small army of commercial travelers to keep up their business contacts. Joseph Lawende, for instance, was a commercial traveler in the coffin nail trade. (tobacco) These blokes traveled all across England and up into Scotland, etc. collecting orders for their products, and concluding other business transactions. Often they were on the road for days at a time. Macnaghten’s confusion over Cutbush’s whererbouts probably signals that this was the case with THC. It could be that by 1891 the appropriate paperwork of the Tea firm had been pulped, and Inspectors Race and/or Chisholm were never able to confirm whether or not Cutbush was in London on the dates of the murders. Otherwise, the statement does't appear to make any sense at all.

[Robert Linford]

Ah, quicksand, quicksand!

I believe that, all other things being equal, the results of police investigations take precedence over the results of journalistic ones. It would be nice to think that Macnaghten had instituted a complete investigation of all the Sun's claims, before compiling his memorandum. But the time gap between the Sun articles and the date of the memorandum seems to show that this didn't happen. Instead, Sir M relies on the results of the 1891 police investigation.

For someone who places so little reliance on the statements of Thomas's mother and aunt, Macnaghten seems to rely on them quite a lot. For instance, the info about Thomas's father having died when Thomas was very young, and about Thomas being Supt Cutbush's nephew, presumably came from them (if it came from lodgers or neighbours, then isn't that worse?)

It's interesting that they even thought it necessary to try and find out where Thomas had been in 1888. They obviously thought that this bottom-jabber might be in the frame for the murders. Of course, we don't know how hard they tried to discover where he'd been, and the police investigated many other people too. But it does seem to me that they were trying to narrow his whereabouts to the specific murder nights. Surely, if Sir M's meaning was more general, he'd have written "It was found impossible to ascertain his whereabouts at the time of the Whitechapel murders"? The mention of "movements" and "nights" seem to me to have a much more specific meaning.

According to Macnaghten's version (however trustworthy or otherwise it may be) the "apparent syphilis" of "around 1888" seems to have followed the traveller job. This syphilis is interesting. I'm wondering how the police knew about the letters that Thomas wrote. Would they actually have contacted Grimthorpe and the Treasury? Perhaps, when Thomas's room was searched, the police found replies that Thomas had received from Grimthorpe and the Treasury? If so, it's strange that they didn't contact Dr Brooks of Westminster Bridge Rd, who presumably would have been able to tell the police whether Thomas had syphilis, and when he'd contracted it - there would have been no "apparently" and "around 1888".

Robert

[Natalie Severn]

Hi RJ,
Yes,the Sun"s chronology like the texts and quotes that have come down to us that were written or spoken by Macnaghten are confusing.Like most of the policemen"s - eg Anderson"s ,Littlechild"s,Swanson"s, Abberline"s etc whose dates as well as names are littered with anomalies - each and every one of them advocating a different choice of " prime suspect" .As a result this entire exercise is made very confusing for us to establish exact chronologies or fully understand their rational.
However,to take up some of your points about dates. The Sun is quite specific and unequivocol in writing that July 24th 1888 marked the start of Thomas Cutbush"s employment in a firm which was "in the immediate vicinity of the murders",so I am going to hold to that exact date and accept that this was where he was on July 24th 1888.Moreover I understand because of the emphasis of the wording in the report that it was at this firm and not at any other, that the alleged attack on the elderly man took place.This attack, it has to be said, reveals a very callous ,egocentric individual ,so unable to bear criticism that he coldly and dispassionately threw an elderly colleague downstairs and left him for dead.
We are told by The Sun and Macnaghten that it was also in 1888, the year of the murders, that Thomas Cutbush had contracted syphillis and had begun to panic over his skin sores and general health-which indicates that he probably began to frequent prostitutes at this time----in the East End .
The tea company he worked for at this time could well have been the very tea company of Kearley and Tonge Ltd ,which had offices in Mitre Square ie in the immediate vicinity of the murder of Catherine Eddowes and if I remember rightly there was also a Kearley and Tonge warehouse in Bucks Row,but at any rate Macnaghten specifies that the Tea company was in The Minories which begins at the Mitre square end of Houndsditch.
You are absolutely right when you say his movements after 1888 become
difficult to make sense of.All I can do at present is point out that the reported inconsistency of his work record,changing jobs,possibly wandering from city to city as a traveller for some company etc is entirely consistent with the work record of a paranoid schizophrenic,which I believe Thomas Cutbush was.
He may have recovered,temporarily, from the onset of the 1888 psychotic episode,possibly brought on by the stress of finding himself with syphilis and his face covered in rashes and sores finally tipping him over the edge,the psychosis peaking between the late Summer/late Autumn of 1888.After the Autumn he may well have gone into remission for a while- scarred no doubt by the tumultuous symptoms and happenings but still able to function to a degree in the outside world- probably presenting as a bit of an oddball with a nasty streak up until he was sectioned and sent to Broadmoor.

Best
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Yes Robert & Natalie, quicksand indeed!
But RJP is right to a certain extent, for it is intensely difficult to twin TC's reported behaviour and habits in 1888 with the fact that he appeared to be in regular employment at the same time.
One supposes that this impasse will not be resolved until some new material emerges about the lad in 1887, 1889 and 1890.

Meanwhile I find myself quite struck by the fact that one of Thomas' chosen correspondents, Lord Grimthorpe, was heavily embroiled in a much publicised debate in March of 1886 concerning the role of private lunatic asylums within the meaning of the new Lunacy Acts; and wondered whether this too might have played a role in Thomas writing to the good Lord?
For I do imagine that young Thomas was very likely confined to a private lunatic asylum prior to 1888, and then again after that date.
This then puts me in mind of the strange little story related by Dr Harold Dearden concerning a chap who was in the trenches with him on the 9th November 1918 and told Dearden:
'This was the second time his birthday had been ruined, the other being the occasion of his 10th birthday. His father had been proprietor of a private lunatic asylum on the outskirts of London. At dinner time a noisy and violent lunatic was brought in, disturbing the boy's birthday party. The lunatic was the son of one of his father's oldest friends, and later, when calmed down, became a smiling and gently demented companion for the boy, with a great talent for drawing...'

Remember how the Sun described TC's remarkable talent for drawing caricutures and the like?
Just a thought.

[Robert Linford]

Hi AP

Yes, it is a good point of RJ's, however the Double Event was on a Saturday/Sunday, and Kelly was borderline time-wise, so Thomas may have got his lie-in on a couple of occasions.

Re Grimthorpe, I've always hankered after the idea that homeopathy was at least partly involved, and that a hypochondriac who had or believed he had syphilis might have wanted a hair of the dog. It doesn't explain the heart and kidney, of course, unless we load up Thomas with so many diseases that he couldn't get out of bed at all.

Robert

[A.P. Wolf]

Indeed Robert.
Do you remember some additional reports concerning Thomas's trial that you posted a long time ago on the Casebook site?
Any chance of posting them here again?
I seem to remember they provided a lot more background on the circumstances of the alleged jobbings?

[Robert Linford]

AP, they're on page one of this thread.

Robert

[Natalie Severn]

AP and Robert,
I was interested in your sad little story about Dr Dearden"s son AP---any other info on the doctor? BTW I wasnt wanting to imply that Thomas was hateful or all bad at all times.He surely did have a gentler side- maybe as you say an" artistic" side, when he wasnt stressed or when his illness wasnt raging.
Thanks Robert for reminding me again how Macnaghten was probably largely informed by the police investigation in 1891.
Best
Natalie

[Robert Linford]

Hi Nats and AP

Wasn't the doctor born 1883? This would date the birthday party to 1893. Surely Tom was in Broadmoor then, rather than a private asylum?

Robert

Edit - it was the other guy who had the birthday, not Dearden's son. Doh!

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Robert
but I seem to remember something else you posted, with the witness testimony of a chap, who came across as a police informer... he actually tried to grab Cutbush.
Or am I thinking of the Colicitt case?

[Robert Linford]

AP, I'm afraid I don't remember that.

BTW, I was in touch yesterday with another person who has CHC in her tree. No mention of TTC or THC.

Robert

[A.P. Wolf]

No worries Robert, I'll see if I can dig up the report.
While on the subject of the connection between Thomas Cutbush and Charles Henry Cutbush of Scotland Yard one should not forget the strange reference to Scotland Yard in the letter that Thomas sent to Dr Brookes, and I quote:

'About four of five years ago a letter was given to me. It was from ---- and addressed to me. The letter, said the writer, informed me that he had been to Scotland Yard and had lain an information against me.'

Why Scotland Yard?
Surely it would have been the norm to lay such information at a police station rather than at Scotland Yard.
This does seem to imply that Thomas knew someone at Scotland Yard who might take his complaints seriously.

[Robert Linford]

Well, yes AP, but on the other hand, Thomas seems to have liked to go to the top - hence the Treasury. Also, if you're thinking of CHC, well, Tom virtually only had to walk just round the corner.

Robert

[A.P. Wolf]

Indeed Robert, and that makes one wonder why Labouchere (is that his name?) in his interview with the Sun doesn't mention the letter that Thomas Cutbush sent to him?

On another tack, Robert, I've been trying to read the detail in the 1891 census for the Seaside Home - Clarendon Villas - and there appears to be a total of four policemen resident, but I'm beggared if I can read a single name.
Have you a more legible copy?

[Robert Linford]

AP, I've taken the image Chris posted at
http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4926/11863.html (http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4926/11863.html)
and expanded it horizontally and vertically as much as I can, consonant with the posting requirements here which I think are 800x800.

[Robert Linford]

I've emailed you a very large Ancestry image.

[R.J.Palmer]

AP -- Correct me if I’m wrong, but in reviewing Jack the Myth, The Sun exposé, the Macnaghten memo, and the Cutbush threads, etc., I’m not seeing any direct evidence that Cutbush ever worked for Kearley & Tonge. Am I missing something? Is there documentation for this, or is it supposition based on the location of the warehouse in Aldgate? There’s a cocoa factory at 147 Minories, but I’m not seeing a Tea warehouse. Cheers, RP

[A.P. Wolf]

Quite right, RJP, it is supposition.
I too have searched long and hard for a tea warehouse in the Minories, without a jot of success, but Macnaghten doesn't mention a tea warehouse... what he says is:
'He had been employed as a clerk and traveller in the Tea trade at the Minories, and subsequently canvassed for a Directory in the East End.'
Perhaps the establishment in the Minories was an office rather than a warehouse?
One wonders - as it does appear that the knife he possessed was from Moses & Sons of the Minories - whether he might have been employed in their huge general store, which sold everything from tea to tables.
As I think you know my interest is in the fact that at least three ascribed victims met their deaths outside of tea warehouses.
I believe two of those warehouses to have belonged to Kearly & Tonge.

[Natalie Severn]

On the other hand Macnaghten refers to a tea company at The Minories and Kearley and Tonge was a tea company in Mitre Square ,so it was virtually at The Minories,The Minories being an extension of Houndsditch, beginning at St Botolphs Church Aldgate,which is right next to Mitre Square.
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

And then looking back through my records of chaos, I do note two tea warehouses in the Minories in 1888.
St. Olave's Bonded Tea Warehouse, John Street, Minories.
Messrs. Wrightson's Tea Warehouse, John Street, Minories.

[Chris G.]

And then looking back through my records of chaos, I do note two tea warehouses in the Minories in 1888.
St. Olave's Bonded Tea Warehouse, John Street, Minories.
Messrs. Wrightson's Tea Warehouse, John Street, Minories.

AP, do be careful of any opinions tendered on this thread by Robert Linford. He is after all listed on Casebook as Teaboy. :ranger:

Chris

[A.P. Wolf]

Better trust a man who drinks tea, Chris, than one who drinks brandy.

Robert
thanks for that.
So am I right in that the three names of the policemen in the Seaside Home at the 1891 census were 'Fay' (or Hay), 'Hatch' and 'Child'?
It is 'Child' I have a problem with.
Surely this cannot be Detective Sergeant Child of the City Police?
If not, then who is he?

[Robert Linford]

Yes, Hay, Hatch and Child.

Not sure if Child was in the City police, AP. It was a Met Home, though I dare say they swapped around a bit.

Robert

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Robert
I'm still looking at Hay, Hatch and Child.

Hey RJP, I enjoyed this quote from you on another thread that you are posting to at the moment:

'But even if the letter turned out to be irrelevant hookum, it may have helped validate both men's thoughts that a family (or social group) would be hesitant to turn their relative over to justice out of fear of notoriety and reprisal.'

Sounds good to me.

[R.J.Palmer]

AP - As always, I am deeply impressed by your commitment to historical veracity, regardless of whose cage you might rattle, or whose pet theory you may leave in tatters.

With this same spirit in mind, could you please reveal your source for the following remarkable claim?

Chpt. 13 of ‘Jack the Myth’

“A good indication of just how dangerous the activities of Thomas Cutbush actually were is obvious from his trial when he appeared in court for the stabbings on the two ladies, for both counsel for the defence and prosecution stated their earnest belief that Thomas Cutbush was indeed Jack the Ripper, but they were ignored by the judge and Thomas Cutbush was not even allowed to plead.”

I think we would all agree that this is extraordinary stuff. Provided, of course, that it is true.

All I am prepared to say at this time is that I’m not see anything in either the contemporary court reports, nor even in the ‘Sun’ exposure of 1894, that supports the remarkable contention that the prosecution or the defense ever suggested, let alone believed, that T.H. Cutbush was the Ripper. However, I would certainly not wish to imply that you had merely ‘made it up.’ Certainly you have a source.

Can I ask what it is?

Many thanks.

[A.P. Wolf]

My Dear RJ,
We already covered this ground before regarding Natalie's comments a while ago.
The 'Sun' reported that claim.
I reported it.

I hope you note my address to you, seeing that we have been exchanging letters for a while now.

[R.J.Palmer]

AP -- Seeing that we’ve exchanged messages, I’ll start addressing you as ‘Dear Sir.’ (A joke). I suppose the rhetorical distance has to do with some old dueling scars.

I’m genuinely not seeing it anywhere in the Sun exposé, unless there are further reports to which I don’t have access.

Also, getting back to the original theme of this thread, I think the following statement from Lauren Coleman’s The Copycat Effect may be of interest.

Coleman briefly mentions J.F. Brewster’s “The Curse of Mitre Square,” which appeared in October 1888, and gave a ‘vivid’ recounting of the murders. He then states:

“the telegraph-hastened, press-driven coverage of the Jack the Ripper story created its own mythos....

“Sociologist Steve Stack noted that researcher Jean-Gabriel de Tarde, soon after the Jack the Ripper murders, wrote that a “suggestion effect” had taken place.” (p. 136)

I’m currently looking into de Tarde. An examination of his ‘suggestion effect’ might prove interesting, and not irrelevant to the cases of Thomas Cutbush and Thomas Sadler.

More anon. Yours, Dear Sir.

[A.P. Wolf]

My Dear Palmer
(I know you will not mind me using that address, now that we have exchanged several letters on this topic. I must dig out that first note you sent me, for at the time I thought it a joke, and consigned it to a drawer in my desk.)
Yes, the report is in the Sun articles.
I'll dig it out for you later as I've got that file at work.
Perhaps if you try blowing at the edges of the paper in your copy you might find that they'll come unstuck... and hey presto!
yours

AP

[Natalie Severn]

RJ
Please see separate thread on the Sun"s statement about both the prosecution and defence teams references as reported in The Sun of 13 February 1894 regarding Cutbush being suspected of being "Jack the Ripper".
I thought it important enough to have a thread of its own.Hope that is ok by AP and yourself.
Best
Natalie

[R.J.Palmer]

"It will be noted that the fury of the mutilations increased in each case, and, seemingly, the appetite only became sharpened by indulgence. It seems, then, highly improbable that the murderer would have suddenly stopped in November '88, and been content to recommence operations by merely prodding a girl behind some 2 years and 4 months afterwards."

comments welcome.

[A.P. Wolf]

RJP, fair comment if you accept the basic premise that Cutbush was in fact guilty of the 'jobbing' crimes, which I'm not prepared to do after Robert's recent finds which do seem to indicate genuine doubts over his true guilt in these matters.
I think the idea that Thomas Cutbush was in fact confined some time in 1888 or 1889 to a private lunatic asylum, by his family, has also ganied considerable ground, again because of Robert's recent finds which do seem to indicate that this happened.
Having not read the 'Sun' reports for a while, I can't say whether mention is made of this or not, but I seem to remember there being some reference.
I'll have to read them again.
Is it not also right to say that the 'jobbing' offences took advantage of daylight hours, whilst the Whitechapel Murderer liked the midnight hour?

As I think you know, I believe Thomas was on medication in 1888 - mercury and the like - which may have given him alarming hallucinations, and radically altered his perception and view of the world around him. A long spell in a medical institution - where he was unable to treat himself with 'bad medicine' - may well have cured his obviously barmy behaviour, but upon his release he would have gone straight back on his medication with his barmy behaviour once again escalating to the point where he was carrying a knife again and attacking women - like his aunt - and then who knows where this would have ended?
Well, we know the answer to that.
Broadmoor.
Life.

[R.J.Palmer]

AP - Confusion. confusion. confusion...

The 1891 street jobbings is what provided the link between Cutbush and the Whitechapel murders. If you're going to toss that to the winds, and now argue that he was innocent of those crimes, there's no way in hades you'll convince your readers that he was nonetheless guilty of the 1888 murders, but then somehow became wrongly implicated in the 1891 spree. It's too convoluted.

How do you propose to proceed?

[A.P. Wolf]

With my usual aplomb, RJP.

[R.J.Palmer]

I never doubted it for a moment.

If I were wearing your leather apron, I'd ditch Uncle Charles entirely, and start probing the idea of Cutbush being one of those two unnamed 'mad medical students.' In say, a private anatomical college as opposed to London Hospital. "If God did not exist, it would be necessary for man to invent him." "If Cutbush was not the Ripper, the press would have called him it anyway." Right or wrong, that's the thinking you're up against.

[A.P. Wolf]

Well RJP, I know you'll agree with me when I refer to Colicitt's case as being somehow implicated in the Cutbush case; and then that the two court cases - Cutbush & Colicitt - should have proceeded along exactly the same lines, resulting in the same actions and decisions for offences that were identical in nature... but we know this not to be the case.
Colicitt being treated very kindly by the court and released for a small bond into the care of his family.
Cutbush being subject to HMP, disallowed to plead, despite the best efforts of his defence, and confined to Broadmoor for the rest of his life.
For exactly the same offences as Colicitt was found guilty upon.
There appears to have been an intense effort on the part of the authorities to demonstrate that Cutbush was the guilty party whilst Colicitt was a case of mistaken identity, but given witness statement it is entirely possible that it was Colicitt that was guilty - he was found so by the court - and Cutbush was the case of mistaken identity.
As you know, I had long thought that Cutbush's wobbly path through the court was more or less dictated by the fact that his family had appeared to have abandoned him to his fate, whilst Colicitt's family raised a determined profile resulting in a lesser punishment, but since Robert's find shows that the Cutbush family rallied behind Thomas with actual evidence showing him not to be at the scenes of the crimes, I obviously no longer hold to that notion.
Robert's discovery reveals a family - the Cutbush clan - and a defence team absolutely stunned and horrified by the fact that Thomas, and his defence team, were not even allowed to plead or offer evidence on his behalf, before Thomas is marched of under a HMP order for life in Broadmoor.
There is no rhyme or reason to this remarkable turn of events and all we are able to do is speculate that the authorities concerned simply wanted Thomas Cutbush off the streets and into a secure criminal asylum, with enough speed to ensure that neither he, his family, or his defence team had a chance to say one single word to anybody about the true nature of Thomas Cutbush and the crimes he had committed.
I am not alone in my feelings that Thomas was being conspired upon by the authorities, both the family and defence team also express their concerns in this regard; and we now see that two major newspapers of the time also expressed their concerns that something was not kosher about Thomas Cutbush and his abrupt exit from the stage of world events. These concerns, and much other evidence led to one of these newspapers claiming that Thomas Cutbush was none other than Jack the Ripper; and that it was simply the fact that he was closely related to the most senior serving police officer at Scotland Yard that his case for the 'jobbings' was dealt with in a manner that ensured no evidence would ever be heard in this regard.
This in turn led to the Macnaghten Memo, and that in turn led to Executive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush of Scotland Yard clapping a Tranter to his head and blowing his brains out.
History is a funny old thing.

[Natalie Severn]

Now if you"ll forgive me AP, I think this where you can make your most outstanding contributions, not by taking those imprudent forays into territory where you cause such a frightful rumpus and end up getting everyones back up .
Poor Thomas Cutbush ......and yet...........perhaps I have found someone who better matches poor Thomas and his personality problems than his fellow "jobber" and near neighbour from Aldebert Terrace Mr Colicott. So if you will ,please allow me to quote part a case study taken about a seaman who had to be discharged from the US navy.
Lets call him CAP:
On admission,the patient proved to be seclusive,egocentric and antagonistic.He presented a facial expression marked deeply by bitter hatred and rebelliousness.CAP reluctantly gave up his "BOWIE KNIFE" and "frog sticker" which he kept ready for "emergencies".At first he was verysuspicious but rapport was established by making him realise that someone was sincerely interested in his problem.He seemed to be perplexed by his own reactions to life and when he was advised that the reason for his bitter hatred was his abnormal sensitivity he agreed,and became more cooperative in the psychiatric investigation.He admitted that he had always felt differently from other persons and had never had any friends.
CAP revealed that the difficulty on board ship had occurred as a result of an offficer swearing at him.He became obsessed by this blow to his ego,was sullen and irritable,and planned to obtain revenge.Because of his pathological sensitivity and rigid paranoid disposition no retaliation seemed sufficient to neutralise his injured pride.He finally decided he must kill the officer,and lay awake at night planning the murder.His admission to hospital frustrated his plans.
On previous occasions he had brutally obtained satisfaction from others,even for slight cause.For instance,several years before,in a bus station in Texas city,he had placed his suitcase on a platform; a Mexican picked up the suitcase,probably by mistake, and our patient ordered him to set it down. An argument ensued,both men drew knives and the patient stabbed the Mexican,who fell in a heap to the floor.The patient walked casually away as if nothing had happened.He admitted without any emotion whatsoever that the unfortunate incident had never caused him the least concern.
Familiar that last bit isnt it regarding the episode with the old man and the stairs......
I wonder where he had purchased his Bowie Knife----they do seem a very popular item among certain oddballs!

Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Natalie, but I would have preferred 'impudent' rather than 'imprudent'.
The rest was great though.

[Natalie Severn]

-then impudent it shall be AP.
and yet again I see you have embarked on another "impudent foray'" --you have now got poor old Littlechild stitched up with nervous debility in the policeman's seaside home---lets hope he wasnt disturbed by Uncle Charles getting his tranter out!
:help:

[R.J.Palmer]

I remember, several years ago now, a baseball game in which the aging American pitcher Nolan Ryan threw a fastball high and inside to Jeff Bagwell.

Bagwell threw down his bat, charged the mound, only to find himself suddenly and inexplicably in a headlock, with Ryan's future Hall-of-Fame knuckles raining down on his cranium.

It was an image of an aging vetran, kicking the crap out a much younger and stronger athlete.

When I conjure up in my mind's eye an imaginary encounter between Frank Tumilty and the young Tommy Cutbush, I see a very similar scene. As much as A.P. Wolf likes to portray Cutbush as an almost superhuman monkey, climbing stone walls and leaping wooden fences, I suspect that if these two combatants had met in 1888, Cutbush would have found himself on the wrong end of a thrashing.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Actually it was Robin Ventura, not Bagwell. I wouldn't want to mess with Bagwell.

Here is a photo of Nolan all set to apply a whole bunch of noogies on Robin's head.

http://z.lee28.tripod.com/sbnsperspectives/id13.html

I think this is the first time I've ever posted on a suspect's thread that wasn't a Tumblety thread. I feel like a turtle who has been flipped on its shell. Now I find myself laying on my back and staring up at the sky. I better get out of here!

[Robert Linford]

Not till you've laid an egg, Joe.:faint:

[Joe Chetcuti]

My Grandfather worked in a San Francisco slaughter house during the Great Depression. When I was I kid I asked him, "Why do chickens squawk when they lay an egg?"

He answered, "You'd squawk too if your ass was flaming red."

[R.J.Palmer]

Actually it was Robin Ventura, not Bagwell. I wouldn't want to mess with Bagwell.

That's the beauty of it; it wasn't Cutbush either, it was Colocitt. "The Evil Twins" ...

[A.P. Wolf]

Oh come, RJP, Thomas had previous, in that he had thrown a man of Tumblety's age down the stairs and almost killed him, attacked his aunt and mother with a knife; and then attempted to murder a doctor who was treating him, and threatened to shoot the entire population of England.
And then the little Catholic bastard went and pissed in the main London reservoir to poison his dear old uncle Charles.
What more do you want?

[R.J.Palmer]

A.P. - That's bastard of it. Much of what you say is on reasonable footing; some of it is even verifiable. I even like your Tommy as a suspect better than most. I think he tells me something important about the murders, which isn't generally the case with other suspects.

Unfortunately, and I mean this in the most helpful way, your burden is that all of that strange behavior pefectly explains why he went around jobbing girls in 1891. The difficulty I have is winding the tape back three years.

I do think the 'victimology' poses a major problem, but you might find a way through that wall. I see a perverse sort of courtship where THC is whacking the young girls on the arm and then running away to the swingset. Every boy in my third grade class acted that way, only they weren't carrying a knife.

Just out of curiosity, is there some reason you, Robert, and/or Natalie want to suggest this fellow was homosexual? Or just a hunch?

[R.J.Palmer]

APW - Hello. Not to embarrass you, but I’m wondering if would mind giving a little clarification concerning something you’ve written on another thread:


RP: 4/29 As an aside, I think it is a pity that the “Cutbush” section of the Aberconway version is never reprinted... It's deemed irrelevant. I’ve never even seen AP Wolf or anyone else ever bother with a comparison between the two versions....


APW: 4/30 Oh, I've compared them, RJP, but I've always held to the belief that when you write a document like this, that is it, you just send it away, and everything else is just pants.


Is this a meant merely as a joke?

Looking into this a bit further, it appears that the Aberconway version [no] longer exists; indeed, it even appears (and I could be wrong) that no one even owns a complete transcription of it. Thus, I am assuming your response was made as a joke, and you’ve never actually seen the Aberconway version of the Cutbush material? Correct me if I misunderstood, as I’d be interested to know if anyone has ever actually even seen the bloody thing.

[R.J.Palmer]

That should read "the Aberconway version no longer exists."

[A.P. Wolf]

Not a bit of it, RJP.
I have never taken the original document seriously; as I said it was fired off as a sop, a damage limitation exercise, a piece of confounded nonsense designed to focus the white noise elsewhere.
A copy would not over-excite my limited attention span.
You and others have laboured this issue, which I see as no issue, for it doesn't really matter,as the original document is so vastly flawed in its detail that it can never have a bearing on the true facts of the matter.

[R.J.Palmer]

You and others have laboured this issue

There's a Shakespearean quip in there somewhere.

[R.J.Palmer]

the original document is so vastly flawed in its detail that it can never have a bearing on the true facts of the matter.

This is a Catch-22, because the whole argument is that the flaws in the memo are evidence of duplicity, so the document does have value however one wishes to interpret it.

I'm entirely willing to entertain the notion that Macnaghten is garbled and/or "firing off sop," but that would make it all the more vital to study the Aberconway version, provided it could be found. Take for instance the following line:

"The cuts in the girls dresses made by Colocitt were quite different to the cut made by Cutbush"

That, properly considered, is a very odd statement.

Was Colocitt misidentified, or was he not misidentified? The contemporary reports--at least the one's I've seen-- suggest to me that it was a case of mistaken identity, in which case Colocitt never made any cuts in dresses. It appears that Mel is writing up Cutbush as a 'jobber' rather than a 'slasher.' I don't understand why he's emphasizing this particular detail.

[Paul]

Looking into this a bit further, it appears that the Aberconway version [no] longer exists; indeed, it even appears (and I could be wrong) that no one even owns a complete transcription of it. Thus, I am assuming your response was made as a joke, and you’ve never actually seen the Aberconway version of the Cutbush material? Correct me if I misunderstood, as I’d be interested to know if anyone has ever actually even seen the bloody thing.

Er, why do you say that no one even owns a complete transcription of it? The whereabouts of the original is indeed unknown, it having apparently been inherited by Gereld Melville Donner from his mother Julia Donner, but a complete copy was made by Lady Aberconway (mostly typed by her secretary, the 'suspects' pages written in Lady A's hand). I don't know where the Aberconway version is today.

[Paul]

it was fired off as a sop, a damage limitation exercise, a piece of confounded nonsense designed to focus the white noise elsewhere.

A sop to whom? What white noise was it focusing elsewhere? Where was it focusing it?

We don't know who it was written for, why it was written, or whether it was ever sent to anyone except a filing clerk. Apart from the obvious purpose of refuting the claim's in [I]The Sun[I], and, with due respect to your theory, as far as is known rightly so, isn't everything else just supposition?

[A.P. Wolf]

We've been here before, Paul, but I'll give it another push and then perhaps your motor will cough into life.
The entire thrust of the 'Sun' reports was to show that Thomas Cutbush was related to the most senior police officer investigating the Whitechapel Murders. It was a campaign designed to embarrass Scotland Yard, the implication being that there had been some kind of cover up where Cutbush was concerned.
This coupled with the fact that Charles Henry Cutbush was barking mad himself at the time, is obviously the reason why pen was put to paper as a sop to senior officials who would have been alarmed by the reports in the 'Sun'.

I didn't realise that there was still a debate about 'why' the Memo was written?
I thought this was settled in 1894.
Or do you feel it was not written in response to the reports in the 'Sun'.
Just a marvelous coincidence?
Just like Charle's rapid retirement, and his subsequent suicide?
Just unrelated events of no consequence, eh Paul?

[R.J.Palmer]

Er, why do you say that no one even owns a complete transcription of it?

Paul - Hi. I did say “correct me if I’m wrong.” Perhaps this is old hat to those who were actively researching in the 1960s and 70s, or early 80s, but my impression is that there is considerable confusion among the younger set where extactly the Aberconway version now resides, and who, if anyone, has a full transcription of it. As I said in a previous post, it’s a pity that no author has bothered to published the full transcript--ie., the Cutbush sections-- and I’m still unsure of who may or may not have a copy of it. No slight intended to APW, but perhaps the fact that those sections haven’t been published says more about the lack of interest in the Cutbush theory than anything else. The Druitt/Kosminski sections are readily available, and have led to some interesting observations. It seems to me this would be a key document, and why APW has no interest in it is beyond my small mind's ability to comprehend.

[R.J.Palmer]

Or do you feel it was not written in response to the reports in the 'Sun'. Just a marvelous coincidence?

AP - I don't think anyone is arguing that it wasn't in response to the Sun; I think the question is more specific. Who had been 'worked up' by the Sun's exposure; who specifically was the 'Confidential' memo sent to?

Since it was written for private consumption, rather than public consumption, is difficult to fully accept your theory that it was 'damage control' in a broad sense. For there to be 'damage control' there has to be 'damage.' It obviously wasn't a press release.

[Scott Nelson]

Not to divert an interesting discussion, but A.P. - do you still think that Thomas Cutbush was the Ripper?

[A.P. Wolf]

RJP
my view has always been that the memo was produced for the Mandarins in the Treasury, who would have wanted reassurance that Cutbush was not a valid or viable suspect.
This was done.
It may have been a bright shining lie, but a useful sop.
I'll stick to the original, thank you very much.