Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush & Thomas Cutbush NOT related?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    To Roy

    You're completely missing the political context.

    Macnaghten is preparing a report for the Home Office, in which now sits a Liberal, not a cosy, fellow Tory: H H Asquith (whom Mac would know was a man of 'low birth' desperate to insinuate himself among the toff elite).

    Asquith and his goverment (the PM was Gladstone for the last time) are not responsible for the failure, between 1888 and 1894, of the state to catch the Whitechapel fiend.

    The Liberals can throw the Tory administrators of the Yard, like Anderson and Macnaghtem, to the wolves if need be. Radical members like Labouchere were sniffing around for an offical investigation about the tabloid scoop -- about which, nevetheless, he was openly sceptical.

    And Macnaghten knew something else, or thought he did, even more potentially explosive.

    The real fiend was most likely a suicided surgeon's son from Dorset, whom a loose-lipped Tory backbencher had indiscreetly told people about in 1891, before being shut down (by fellow Old Etonian, Macnaghten?)

    Mac knew (or thought he did) that this Cutbush could not possibly be the Ripper, but he that he could be enormous trouble for the Yard because articles in 'The Sun' might trigger a revival of the 'West of England' MP scoop, by some 'enterprizing' hack, and this time the whole story might come spilling out?

    About how the police were uselessly, excruciatingly chasing a phantom; even investigating as 'Jack' some luckless sailor, in the full glare of media evisceration, when the real toff/Tory murderer was long deceased.

    If Mac does not mention Druitt and the full story comes out -- with perhaps his own briefing as part of the tale -- that could be a publicity debacle. On the other hand to mention Druitt as the 'probable' fiend, but that police were clueless about him until tipped off, years later by the vulture press, would almost be worse.

    So, he tried to navigate a middle course between the two nasties: concede Druitt was a suspect but only a minor one, while concealing that he was entirely unknown until 'some years after'. Add a couple of plausible non-suspects to make it appear that Druitt was just one of many random possibilities but all better than Cutbush because they were dead or incarcerated shortly after the Kelly murder, whereas this jobbing madman was roaming free, and functioning, until early 1891 (eg. just like the real Aaron Kosminski).

    I think Macnaghte experimented with how to make Thomas Cutbush work for the Yard, even though it was one of their own, Race, who was the tabliod's source. He thus disposed of the dad and roped in a retired cop with the same surname. This would give a motive for the 'scoop'; not an upper echelon cover-up of a cock-up but rather a lower echelon bit of mean-spirited 'sour grapes'.

    What about the objection that turning Cutbush and Cutbush into relatives aids the appearance of a cover-up?

    But that's the beauty of this kind of game.

    For Macnaghten could argue that he is being forthright about this 'embarrassing' detail. How can it be a cover-up if you are volunteering 'incriminating' information -- which of course is not true anyhow.

    Plus, by linking the Cutbushes, Macnaghten was implying that if this tale mestatisizes ito a full-blown inquiry, with questions raised in the Commons, as was being touted in some government quarters to embarrass the Tories the tar-baby could be heading for the libel courts.

    An ugly case of defamation maybe in the offing.

    But this document was never sent, and never requested -- so far as we know. Perhaps Macnaghten thought that he had gone too far and changed his mind; something was requested and he did not send it. Yet at some point he archived the report, one addressed to nobody, so that at least Druitt's name was on file as a contemporaneous police suspect, when he was only a posthumous suspect known to Mac alone.

    The alternate version of Mac's 'Home Office Report', which he propagaed to the public beginning in 1898, is disseminated as a scoop about the 'Drowned Doctor' -- nothing to do with either Cutbush who are relegated to complete obscurity.

    An argument against this theorizing is that Mac would not have committed deceit in an official report.

    But he does.

    We can see it by comparing them. He concealed in the official version that Druitt was not just some minor, hearsay figure but was in fact the chief suspect -- at least for Macnaghten.

    He was thus [potentially] with-holding his professional assessment from the Home Office (and with-holding the true timing of when Druitt came to his attention. eg. he was not not arrested because of a 'lack of proof' but because of a lack of a pulse).

    Later, he shared with cronies and through them the public his real opinion about Druitt's culpability and confirmed this opinion -- whether it be right or wrong -- with his 1913 retirement remarks and then his semi-candid 1914 memoirs.

    Somebody capable of that kind of foxiness, with a poor memory at the ready as an excuse, can certainly eliminate the dad and turn a non-relative into an uncle -- especially if never have this fiction tested by your superiors anyway.

    Comment


    • #17
      1891

      Thank you, Jonathan, you may be right. Melville Macnaghten could have simply invented the "nephewarious" connection.

      I'll start over.

      When Thomas Cutbush was accused of the crimes in South London in 1891, there were some linkage to the Ripper case mentioned. Some things said. Was there also, that we know of, any linkage to Superintendent Charles Cutbush? At that time? Did anyone say, "Tom Cutbush, he's the nephew of the police official, you know, the one who lives right down the road there." At that time. I wonder.

      Roy

      Comment


      • #18
        No, there wasn't.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Paul View Post
          Any opportunity to mention the A to Z is gratefully seized.
          And may I say, Paul, that the entry for Thomas Cutbush is particularly fine.
          Itsnotrocketsurgery

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
            Thank you, Jonathan, you may be right. Melville Macnaghten could have simply invented the "nephewarious" connection.

            I'll start over.

            When Thomas Cutbush was accused of the crimes in South London in 1891, there were some linkage to the Ripper case mentioned. Some things said. Was there also, that we know of, any linkage to Superintendent Charles Cutbush? At that time? Did anyone say, "Tom Cutbush, he's the nephew of the police official, you know, the one who lives right down the road there." At that time. I wonder.

            Roy
            Jonathon and Roy,
            I'm torn now!
            As Jonathon knows, I think what happened in 1891 in the Cutbush case has to be significant, the details from the 1891 reporting of his case, (right or wrong) run through the 1894 memo...and maybe Macnaghten never investigated Cutbush after this date of 1891(maybe Ostrog too?)
            The papers said Cutbush was connected, they either had information not published as Roy implies, a relationship where the two maybe just thought or acted like they were related? Or Macnaghten randomly connected a rare surname and maybe muddled up Collicott who was discharged to the care of his father and uncle and didn't really care what anyone thought as long as he had a relationship to account for?
            But, Macnaughten would have to be sure that this would go no further than an internal memo in that case?

            Comment


            • #21
              To Debra

              I hear what you are saying.

              Imagine if Mac had sent this 'Report' to his superiors, and Bradford had noticed the familial connection between Cutbush and Cutbush and, naturally worried, checked this 'incriminating' detail.

              And thus discovered, shock horror, that it was an 'error'.

              Macnaghten would have been in so much hot water.

              Surely, it must be a sincere cock-up?! Or else, Mac had a bureaucratic death wish?

              On the other hand ...

              This over-rated document was never sent, never read by anybody.

              It was totally unknown until Sims made an allusion to it in 1903 -- and that was the significantly different, alternate version.

              Until 'Aberconway' was published in 1965, by Cullen, nobody had come across the 'official' version of the same document filed for 1894, well after the murders of 1888 to 1892 (Macnaghten created the myth that the police only seriously investigated 'Jack' in 1888, and knew at the time time that Kelly was his final victim).

              I do not believe that Douglas Browne ('The Rise of Scotland Yard', 1956) ever learned of this document's existence. Because a thorough reading of it, and Mac's memoirs of 1914, 'Days of My Years', would have revealed to him that Macnaghten -- whether he ever thought the murders were committed by a terrorist leader or not -- had decided, in retirement, that a minor suspect he mentioned on file in 1894 was now his best bet to be the fiend.

              Instead Browne thinks, quite wrongly, that Mac's successor as Commissioner had a different opinion from his former boss about the likely murderer being a man who took his own life.

              Robin Odell, having read 'Aberconway' in Cullen, had some inside contact at the Yard (I presume?), one who checked and found the official version of Macnaghten's 'Home Office Report'. The relevant excerpts were reprinted and analysed in the revised edition of his 1965 'Jack the Ripper: In Fact and Fiction' the following year.

              This is the first time the document enters history, unlike its non-identical twin which had been propagated to the public by Griffiths in 1898, by Sims in 1907, and by Macnaghten himself -- with severe revisions -- in 1914.

              Understandably, a gleeful Odell body-slammed Cullen's Druitt argument because the filed version was much more restrained about Druitt's suspect status -- which it is -- and though it contains less errors, it still contains them (and we know now about Cutbush and Cutbush not being related at all).

              What Odell did not consider is that 'said to be a doctor' is slyly contingent. It means there is room for doubt on this detail. Perhaps he was not a doctor -- and Druitt wasn't.

              I think that in 1894 Macnaghten wrote a document of state, full of fiction, because of the intersecting pressures of partisan politics, the Druitt tale potentially resurfacing in Dorset, the hush-hush embarrassment over Tumblety's flight, and Anderson's conceited need to be proved correct about the fiend being some Polish lunatic despicably protected by his tribe (a man probably now sectioned, if still alive).

              It was a draft, and one he addressed to nobody, and then quietly shelved as 'The Sun' revelations gained no traction -- and no request was made by Asquith for a brief.

              Knowing that he was not going to have to send it to the Home Office (if the official request had been made, Mac might have composed something different again, as we know he reworked this same document several times) he could experiment with how to defuse this damned bomb.

              As Fred Wensley, a Mac protege, wrote in a different context: his beloved chief 'cut the knot his own way' in order to keep 'everyone satisfied'.

              Otherwise, we are left with the unconvincing idea that a highly regarded police administrator, famous for his terrific memory, was so muddled, stupid and callous that he 'recalled' that Cutbush and Cutbush were related, and did no checking whatsoever.

              A mistake which would have caused him to be dressed down at least, if not worse, and just by luck the document was never requested and so his grotesque error was never discovered.

              Lucky Mac.

              Comment


              • #22
                I haven't read all of these threads, and am not challenging the conclusion that Uncle Charles and young Thomas were not related, but, not knowing if someone else has already done it, I started looking into the genealogy of Charles' wife, Ann Dowle, just to "cross the t's and dot the i's," on the wildly unlikely possibility that Charles was related to THC, not through blood, but through marriage.

                Has anyone else tried this?

                I didn't find anything. Ann Dowle must have been the delight of her parents, because she was the only daughter among seven sons. One brother (Alfred) seems to have died relatively young and unmarried. Two emigrated to the Chicago area. Except for Alfred, they all got hitched (I have a reason for using that word) but I'm seeing no obvious connections to any Hayne or Cutbush, etc. I think her younger brother Edward (born 23 Dec 1849) may have set up house with a married woman, separated from her husband, but am not entirely certain, but, no crime as far as I am concerned. As with my more dedicated predecessors, I have found nothing.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                  I haven't read all of these threads, and am not challenging the conclusion that Uncle Charles and young Thomas were not related, but, not knowing if someone else has already done it, I started looking into the genealogy of Charles' wife, Ann Dowle, just to "cross the t's and dot the i's," on the wildly unlikely possibility that Charles was related to THC, not through blood, but through marriage.

                  Has anyone else tried this?

                  I didn't find anything. Ann Dowle must have been the delight of her parents, because she was the only daughter among seven sons. One brother (Alfred) seems to have died relatively young and unmarried. Two emigrated to the Chicago area. Except for Alfred, they all got hitched (I have a reason for using that word) but I'm seeing no obvious connections to any Hayne or Cutbush, etc. I think her younger brother Edward (born 23 Dec 1849) may have set up house with a married woman, separated from her husband, but am not entirely certain, but, no crime as far as I am concerned. As with my more dedicated predecessors, I have found nothing.
                  I do vaguely remember a few years ago looking to see if there was any connection to Kate Hayne and a Superintendent Hayne of the Met. I think that was it. I don't have any details so I must not have found anything.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    All those years ago when people were studying the Cutbush family tree, did anyone notice the following oddity?

                    Thomas Cutbush's grandfather was Thomas Cutbush of Enfield (1807-1866) and he had at least five siblings.

                    The relevant one--that is, if it is relevant--was Elizabeth Ann, born 1817 in Whitechapel.

                    She married a man named William Stokes.

                    So this would be the suspect's great aunt/uncle. Elizabeth and William Stokes.

                    Here's the oddity.

                    I couldn't help notice that Supt. Charles Henry Cutbush, and his wife Ann Dowle, named their son Charles Stokes Cutbush, born 23 August 1880.

                    We know Charles and Thomas aren't related, but the coincidence is a little strange.

                    Could there be a Stokes in Ann Dowle's family tree? Is there a relationship to William Stokes?

                    If there is, I'm not finding it. Her mother's maiden name appears to have been Elizabeth Haiselden. At least according to a family tree posted on Ancestry.

                    Her father was William Dowle (1813-1882), and his wife's name was Susannah Brett.

                    So I have no bleedin' idea why "Uncle" Charles, who wasn't his uncle, named his kid Stokes, and there was a Stokes in the suspect's family tree.

                    --For what it is worth, and it may be worth very little. Maybe someone else has figured it out already.

                    Cheers.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Stokes. Now there is a grand old name. The Normans were said to have brought that name with them when they conquered England in 1066.

                      Let's hope that one of the genealogists in the Ripper world can have some luck while looking into Ann Dowie's family tree.

                      As for me, I will work on the secret mystery of why Roger uses the word hitched for getting married. Hmmm...Getting Hitched. Origin:

                      This phrase originated in America in the late 1500's, and was used to describe tying horses to wagons. It was later used to describe two people getting married as it was like two people being tied together -- just as a horse is tied to a wagon.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                        All those years ago when people were studying the Cutbush family tree, did anyone notice the following oddity?

                        Thomas Cutbush's grandfather was Thomas Cutbush of Enfield (1807-1866) and he had at least five siblings.

                        The relevant one--that is, if it is relevant--was Elizabeth Ann, born 1817 in Whitechapel.

                        She married a man named William Stokes.

                        So this would be the suspect's great aunt/uncle. Elizabeth and William Stokes.

                        Here's the oddity.

                        I couldn't help notice that Supt. Charles Henry Cutbush, and his wife Ann Dowle, named their son Charles Stokes Cutbush, born 23 August 1880.

                        We know Charles and Thomas aren't related, but the coincidence is a little strange.

                        Could there be a Stokes in Ann Dowle's family tree? Is there a relationship to William Stokes?

                        If there is, I'm not finding it. Her mother's maiden name appears to have been Elizabeth Haiselden. At least according to a family tree posted on Ancestry.

                        Her father was William Dowle (1813-1882), and his wife's name was Susannah Brett.

                        So I have no bleedin' idea why "Uncle" Charles, who wasn't his uncle, named his kid Stokes, and there was a Stokes in the suspect's family tree.

                        --For what it is worth, and it may be worth very little. Maybe someone else has figured it out already.

                        Cheers.
                        Doesn't the Stokes name come through Amelia Stokes? Charles Henry Cutbush's mother.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                          Doesn't the Stokes name come through Amelia Stokes? Charles Henry Cutbush's mother.
                          I checked Amelia Stokes's family tree and can't see any obvious family connection to William Stokes, husband of Ann Cutbush.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                            I checked Amelia Stokes's family tree and can't see any obvious family connection to William Stokes, husband of Ann Cutbush.
                            Yes, of course you're right that this is the genesis of Stokes. Thanks for leading me back to reality.

                            I think I wandered down a convoluted rabbit-hole when I found a tree online claiming that the parents of "Uncle" Charles were Charles and Mary (Bell) Cutbush, which initially looked credible, because Charles is listed as a police constable in Lambeth in 1841! So I abandoned that angle started plucking at the Dowle family tree.

                            But this is clearly wrong.

                            Another somewhat strange sidetrack is the Albert Edward Cutbush, living at No. 7 Bucks Row, Whitechapel in 1881 (evidently the former site of the Colleen Bawn P.H.?) whose father Edward William Cutbush was also a police constable on the Southwark side of the river.

                            Either way, neither of these two Cutbush policemen seem to be related to Superintendent Charles, though they might be distantly related to THC, but were long gone by 1891.

                            Now I have a headache.

                            Cutbush and Cutbush weren’t related. I think I’ll leave it at that!

                            I suspect it was just a rumor that had made the rounds at Scotland Yard in 1891, but no one had the nerve to actually ask the Superintendent whether it was true! Afterwards, it solidified into "fact."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                              Yes, of course you're right that this is the genesis of Stokes. Thanks for leading me back to reality.

                              I think I wandered down a convoluted rabbit-hole when I found a tree online claiming that the parents of "Uncle" Charles were Charles and Mary (Bell) Cutbush, which initially looked credible, because Charles is listed as a police constable in Lambeth in 1841! So I abandoned that angle started plucking at the Dowle family tree.

                              But this is clearly wrong.

                              Another somewhat strange sidetrack is the Albert Edward Cutbush, living at No. 7 Bucks Row, Whitechapel in 1881 (evidently the former site of the Colleen Bawn P.H.?) whose father Edward William Cutbush was also a police constable on the Southwark side of the river.

                              Either way, neither of these two Cutbush policemen seem to be related to Superintendent Charles, though they might be distantly related to THC, but were long gone by 1891.

                              Now I have a headache.

                              Cutbush and Cutbush werenít related. I think Iíll leave it at that!

                              I suspect it was just a rumor that had made the rounds at Scotland Yard in 1891, but no one had the nerve to actually ask the Superintendent whether it was true! Afterwards, it solidified into "fact."
                              I think Albert Edward may even have been Albert Ernest?! Born a couple of years earlier than William Ernest, brother of Thomas Hayne. Then there's Thomas H[ubie] Cutbush at Thomas Street, right next to Buck's Row?! (I think?)..there's no escape from this rabbit hole!
                              And what could be more apt than the daughter of a seedsman named Cutbush marrying someone named Shrubsole.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                                I think Albert Edward may even have been Albert Ernest?! Born a couple of years earlier than William Ernest, brother of Thomas Hayne. Then there's Thomas H[ubie] Cutbush at Thomas Street, right next to Buck's Row?! (I think?)..there's no escape from this rabbit hole!
                                And what could be more apt than the daughter of a seedsman named Cutbush marrying someone named Shrubsole.
                                Yes. My notes state Albert Ernest Cutbush. I don't know why I wrote Edward, other than my eyes were starting to glaze over.

                                I must say that I like the current trend among certain Black communities in the U.S. to name their children exotic and unique names. It will help the genealogists sort everything out 150 years from now. Too many people named Charles, Edward, Edwin, and William. Not to mention Mary Jane.

                                Now SHRUBSOLE...that helps! A great name!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X