No announcement yet.

Thomas Cutbush - His Suspect Status

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thomas Cutbush - His Suspect Status

    I realise that there have been many threads on Cutbush and the various aspects of his case. However, in view of the renewed interest in him, and his increased popularity, I thought that a thread taking a sensible and correct view of his standing as a suspect would be in order.

    May I first say that I think he fully deserves suspect status and, as I have stated before, he has never been given a detailed and careful examination in book form. Probably a new book about him is already being written, spurred on by the release of the Broadmoor files. Now seems to be the prime time for researching and publishing such a book.

    It was not until 1993 that he was ever suggested as a serious suspect in published form, first by Nick Warren Warren in Ripperana No. 4, April 1993, and then by A. P. Wolf in his very readable book, Jack the Myth, of the same year, in which there is a chapter on Cutbush.

    So there we have it, Thomas Cutbush, like Aaron Kosminski, has often had his name put into the frame, and both are feasible, yet the definitive work on both of them has yet to be written. Coincidentally, their cases also both date to early 1891. At that same time we also have Michael Ostrog and James Sadler receiving mention.

    Early 1891 seems to have been one of those dates in the Ripper timeline that appear to be a 'hot spot' for Ripper news, highlighted by the Coles murder on 13 February 1891 regarded by some at the time as another (and the last) Ripper crime. Many interesting points to debate.

  • #2

    There is no doubt that Thomas Cutbush was suggested as a Ripper suspect at the time of his arrest in March 1891. Indeed it would have been odd if he hadn't been. The most obvious reasons being as follows -

    1. The press was still engaged in a renewed 'Ripper scare' in light of the recent and unsolved murder of Frances Coles on 13 February 1891.
    2. Thomas Cutbush had attacked women with a knife on the street and was an apparent fetishist and stayed out late at night.
    3. Thomas Cutbush had obvious mental problems (fitting the popular lunatic theory).
    4. Cutbush's alleged consorting with prostitutes and belief that he had a venereal disease.
    5. The movements of Cutbush at the time of the 1888 murders, like Sadler, were enquired into by the police.
    6. The apparent proximity of Thomas Cutbush to the Whitechapel area.

    The odd coincidence of the detention of Aaron Kosminski, with mental problems, in February 1891, a month before Cutbush would have been noted by the police, assuming that Kosminski was a suspect at this time. It would have been impossible for Aaron Kosminski to have murdered Coles but, presumably, not so for Cutbush.

    Much to think about.


    • #3
      I think, SPE, that you'll be well aware that Debs, Nats, Robert and my good self have been contributing new material on THC, and his family, over the last few years, on How's site, and on Casebook.
      Personally I think this is the way forward rather than haul out yet another book that apart from the material we have already published on the net will just repeat everything we already know about the case.
      I don't approve of this regurgative process at all, and would rather see new and useful information on THC immediately posted on such sites as this so that all are able to benefit from this new information, rather than a selfish few who at the end of the day have a commercial intent and purpose.
      At one time I had toyed with the idea of rewriting the 'Myth' with dear Robert, but he knows and understands my feelings in this regard... and anyway the book still stands its ground from 1993.
      I put my toe in the sand then and drew a line... nobody has crossed that line yet.


      • #4
        Stewart I believe there is to be a book by someone called David Bullock, so it will be interesting to see if he has any new info or new arguments.

        AP the only other thing we could do is write the book and donate any profits to the Thomas Cutbush Home for Blind Tea Drinkers.


        • #5
          Or, Robert the 'Thomas Cutbush Home for blind drunk tea drinkers'?
          If I were this Mister Bullock I'd change my name by deed poll preety smartish, as heavens know what games I might play with that when said work is published.


          • #6
            Blimey, Robert, if this is 'im then I bow to his superior knowledge:

            David Bullock

            Born in New York City on November 13, 1960, Bullock had a history of trouble with the law that dated from his adolescent years. In February 1977, he was arrested in Monroe, New York, on charges of criminal mischief and petty larceny. Five months later, in Manhattan, he pled guilty to attempted grand larceny and was committed to a home for delinquent youths, receiving a conditional discharge in November. A burglary arrest in January 1978 led to his adjudication as a youthful offender in Goshen, New York. Over the next three years, Bullock logged adult arrests for robbery and grand larceny, drifting into the seamy underworld of male prostitution. Between December 1981 and January 1982, he killed at least six times, without apparent provocation from his victims.

            Number one was 42-year-old James Weber, an actor shot to death in Central Park the evening of December 4. Nine days later, Bullock told prostitute Edwina Atkins about the murder and she "laughed in (his) face," refusing to believe the story. After sex, Bullock covered her face with a pillow, shot Atkins in the head and set her apartment on fire. On December 15, Bullock used a similar method with Stephen Hassell, a 29-year-old businessman who took him home for sex. As Bullock told detectives, there was "no particular reason" for Hassell's murder; it was "something to amuse myself."

            Bullock's fourth victim was roommate Michael Winley, shot in the head on December 23 and dumped in the Harlem River. (Police accepted Bullock's version of the crime, despite the fact that Winley's corpse had never been recovered.) Heriberto Morales, age 50, took Bullock home after a Christmas party and paid for the mistake with his life. According to Bullock, Morales "started messing with the Christmas tree, telling me how nice the Christmas tree was, so I shot him." As an afterthought, he also set the place on fire.

            Thus far, all of Bullock's victims had been murdered with a .38 revolver, shot without apparent motive. On the fourth of January, Bullock needed cash and he was carrying a sawed-off shotgun when he met 28-year-old Eric Fuller in Mount Morris Park. Charged with six counts of murder on January 15, Bullock told detectives that there might be other victims: he had tried to shoot at least four more, but might have missed. Without specific details, bodies, or complaints from living targets, no more charges were appended to the list.

            On October 26, 1982, Bullock pled guilty to six counts of second-degree murder. Asked for a motive, he told the court, "It's fun." To David Bullock, murder was a kind of sport that "makes me happy." Facing terms of 25 years to life on each murder count, he was advised of the judge's intention to mete out a sentence that "guarantees you never get out of jail as long as you shall live.


            • #7
              A.P. & everyone....

              Without knowing which Bullock it is exactly that has written on Cutbush, lets refrain from adding on contenders to the title on the thread. Thank you.

              If people want to add findings or data on Cutbush on this thread,by all means do so. Please keep this thread as free as possible from statements which will deviate from the purpose of the thread and that was,as SPE initiated and I had hoped it would be.....a serious minded thread to discuss Cutbush..., and to not discuss peripheral or unrelated issues.

              All other posts will be soft deleted, sent back to its originator, and they can do whatever they wish in another section of the site with said posts.

              No exceptions, thanks in advance....have a nice day.
              To Join JTR Forums :


              • #8
                I doubt if that's him, AP. Just doesn't look right.


                • #9
                  How, I have been discussing Thomas Cutbush on this board for a number of years now, and SPE has consistently been negative abut that, now all of a sudden he claims some high ground where he wants to dictate what we can or can not say about Thomas Cutbush?
                  To hell with that. He meets me here on my ground, not his.


                  • #10
                    Dear A.P.

                    No, my friend,you've misinterpreted or I have misstated what I hoped the aim of the thread would be... by me, not SPE... because he made no comments on what has been added on the thread. He started the thread and made the observation that Cutbush should be investigated further now in light of certain developments, which is one I am sure we all are inclined to agree with. He said nothing at all about the add-on of this Bullock character, who is probably,if not definitely,not the chap who wrote the book on Thomas.... I know you put that up in semi-jest...but I was hoping to keep the discussion specifically on Cutbush in light of the opening up of Broadmoor's archives and discuss the new avenues researchers could travel in light of the new data.

                    I just don't want to see the thread...which I have been anticipating as well as some others have I am get into areas which detour into other unrelated issues.

                    We have enough of those threads already,old bean
                    To Join JTR Forums :


                    • #11
                      Count Me Out

                      Originally posted by A.P. Wolf View Post
                      How, I have been discussing Thomas Cutbush on this board for a number of years now, and SPE has consistently been negative abut that, now all of a sudden he claims some high ground where he wants to dictate what we can or can not say about Thomas Cutbush?
                      To hell with that. He meets me here on my ground, not his.
                      AP, I am not claiming any high ground whatsoever, and my feelings about Cutbush not being Jack the Ripper haven't changed either. However, I am always ready to consider any new evidence on any aspect of the case, and for my thinking to be modified if the evidence supports it.

                      It appears that you think that you in some way 'own' Cutbush as a suspect and you have an inflated idea of your own importance. Who the hell am I to claim any high ground? Who the hell I am I to dictate anything? I know my place but, apparently, you do not know yours. The trouble with you is that you think that in the tiny egocentric world of message boards great influence is wielded. Think again Batman.

                      Count me out of any further discussion on this subject.


                      • #12
                        No, SPE, I don't think I own Thomas Cutbush as a suspect at all, we just happen to be joined at the hip.
                        It was the old Planet of the Rippersaurs, back in the dreadful 60's, 70's and 80's, that was a tiny and egocentric world where all that was heard was the heavy thud of a few tired old farts, so set in their ways and beliefs that one could instantly fall asleep at their immediate brilliance... and wake up 20 years later to still smell their wind. This is the brave new world, my friend, where we all have Rippersaur guns and a licence to use 'em.


                        • #13
                          Dear A.P.:

                          I for one fail to see where the pronouncements of SPE or in fact, anyone on these boards towards Cutbush ( primarily encouraged by the opening of Broadmoor ) would constitute them being classified or categorized as being old or flatulent. I do not think that any of the Old Guard, save Messrs. Begg & Evans, are available on message boards or really care that much anymore about Cutbush. Thats good and here's why:

                          Mr Begg,along with Mr. Richard Jones, are conducting research into Broadmoor and SPE initiated this thread,once more, on a positive and constructive note towards the subject of Cutbush and from what I read, is encouraging more discussion on Cutbush. as well as encouraging others in the community to actively investigate what is available on Cutbush.

                          I don't think anyone really cares what Colin Wilson or Daniel Farson or any of the Old Guard has to say about Cutbush, from some psychosexual point of view. This is,as you infer, the age in which old tenets can be demolished or corrected,rather, by facts and data...not theory.

                          Lets all stick together on that basis,shall we?
                          To Join JTR Forums :


                          • #14
                            Well How, you are almost certainly correct in what you say, but there is a small devil in me which says that you can't shift bets once the horse race has begun, so as the favourite falls at the last fence and Seabiscuit comes thundering up to the winning line you are left holding a worthless betting slip, that is unless you placed your money on Seabiscuit, like I did almost twenty years ago.
                            I'll try and deal with that small devil but it's in the detail.


                            • #15
                              'I have had the series of Sun newspaper reports on Cutbush for many years and have never thought of them as casting any light on the identity of Jack the Ripper.'

                              But suddenly they do?