No announcement yet.

Lloyd's Articles

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    From March 03, 2004 - 4:27 pm:

    AP--Hi. More research is certainly needed, but here's what I think "went down." An educated hunch if you will.

    In late 1890 and early 1891 a series of street 'jobbings' or stabbings took place in the Kennington/Clapham-Road area. Quite naturally, the locals--including our furniture selling chum Mr. Myers---were on the look-out.

    In February Myers caught Colocott red-handed thrusting at some local ladies. But notice the careful wording of Mr. Myers. It doesn't really appear that Colocott was caught with a weapon; he was only 'touching' the ladies. He seems to have been stabbing at them with his bare hand. The other women who came forward at the trial that had been actually pierced with a weapon (Miss Lewis, for instance) were unsure of their identifications.
    Despite this, Colocott was found guilty.
    Then something remarkable happens. Another bloke in the same area (Kennington) is nabbed for an identical offense. It's Cutbush, of course.
    In a rather remarkable legal twist, Colocott, though found guilty is given a delay before sentencing, while the authorities try to sort out what was going on.
    Next, something evidently goes on behind the scenes, but we dont' know what it is.
    The result? The next time Colocott shows up in court --for sentencing-- he's given no time. He's released to his family, though he is required to have a keeper. (I take it the £200 surety is insurance for the hiring of the keeper). The next we see young Edwin is in the 1891 census. And lo, he's living at home and there's no sign of a live-in keeper anywhere in sight.
    Meanwhile, Cutbush finds himself up the river.
    What's going on? My hunch, as I've said before, is that a closer examination by the authorities probably suggested that Cutbush was responsible for the earlier jobbings in Kennington/Clapham Road. Colocott was the wrong man

    Four years later, AP, and I still see no reason to change my opinion. Colocitt was innocent; Cutbush was guilty. Only the spelling has changed.
    Last edited by ; April 16, 2008, 02:29 PM. Reason: Still living in 2007


    • #47
      Thomas Cutbush appears to have been a rather "refined"sort of chap,despite his very abnormal behaviour .I think Broadmoor "received" quite a few "ladies and gentlemen" all of whom had lost their marbles .This doesnt mean they were not dangerous and homicidal .Just that a section of Broadmoor seems to have catered for a certain "class" of the homicidally inclined-think Lord Lucan.



      • #48
        Nats, I think Broadmoor also had thieves and embezzlers, as well as murderers.

        Some of the inmates were canny enough to know that if they slit a warder's throat, well.....what could happen to them?


        • #49
          Yes Robert,I am sure many of them,if not most, were very ,very canny indeed !-including smarty pants Cutbush!