Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thomas Cutbush - His Suspect Status

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

  • Mark Grice
    replied
    Very interesting!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    There was certainly madness in the family. His uncle, a superintendent in the Metropolitan Police, shot himself in 1896 in front of his daughter.

    Hmm...some psychiatrists might find that incident a case of grief rather than "certain madness" endemic to the Cutbush clan. The usage of the term "certain" seems to suggest more cases within the family....so are there ?

    The funny thing is...that Robert Linford states, through his research, that Thomas is not kin to Charles Cutbush. If so, then the whole "certain madness" hype is irrelevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • SirRobertAnderson
    replied
    Medical files of madman who may have been Jack the Ripper

    I am certain this has been seen before but I stumbled this morning onto the New York Public Library's online newspaper database for the first time.

    Revealed: medical files of madman who may have been Jack the Ripper.Belfast Telegraph (Belfast, Northern Ireland) (Nov 20, 2008)(958 words)

    AFTER years of secrecy, the Broadmoor authorities have released the medical records of a Victorian madman who was suspected of being the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper.

    Thomas Hayne Cutbush was a strange, disturbed and violent youth who was diagnosed as insane in 1891 and remained in Broadmoor until his death in 1903.

    During the period when the Ripper was on the rampage in Whitechapel, east London, Cutbush was wandering the area's streets. And the Ripper, whoever he was, did not kill again after Cutbush was locked up. Visitors to the Berkshire Records Office in Reading can inspect the 26 documents that make up the records Broadmoor kept about Cutbush, as well as the letters from Ripper investigators pleading to see the documents.

    Disappointingly, the documents do not prove that Cutbush and Jack the Ripper were the same man. There is not even evidence that the Broadmoor attendants or medical staff believed he was a murderer. But there is enough to keep Cutbush on the suspect list.

    He was - to quote an entry on his medical records - "very insane", a danger to the staff, other patients and even to his adoring mother. He was convinced that others were plotting to harm him and fantasised aloud about getting his hands on a knife so that he could "rip" the staff and patients.

    Until he was arrested and diagnosed, Cutbush had lived his whole life in Kennington, south London, within walking distance of the scene of the Ripper murders. He was born on June 29, 1864, which would mean that he was 24 when Jack the Ripper started killing. His father died when he was young and he was brought up by his mother, Kate, and her sister, who evidently adored him.

    He worked as a clerk but in 1888, about the time the Ripper killings began, he went insane. It has been assumed that he contracted syphilis. His death certificate says that he died from "cronic (sic) kidney disease" - although the document attributes his insanity to "heredity and overstudy".

    There was certainly madness in the family. His uncle, a superintendent in the Metropolitan Police, shot himself in 1896 in front of his daughter. The reference to "overstudy" refers to the evenings young Thomas spent poring over medical textbooks after he came home from work, until madness took hold. He took to wandering the streets at night, returning sometimes covered in mud or - according to one report - in blood.

    He also became convinced that his doctor, Dr Brooks, or Brookes, was trying to poison him. He wrote to Lord Grimthorpe, one of London's leading lawyers, demanding action, but then concluded that Grimthorpe was in on the conspiracy. He was taken to a Lambeth clinic but escaped. While on the loose, a girl was stabbed nearby and another threatened. A memo in his medical notes says: "Through the carelessness of the attendant he escaped. Smeared his face with mud so as to avoid detection. Came home at midnight. Man at Cottons Wharf says he was there when assault alledged (sic) was committed."

    Cutbush was never convicted of a crime because the jury at his trial in April 1891 concluded that he was insane. His mother protested that he had done nothing. But the medical notes accompanying his arrival in Broadmoor suggest that he was dangerous: "Is dazed and at times incoherent, strange and shifty in appearance. Has ideas of persecution, specially against Lord Grimthorpe".

    "His aunt, Clara Hayne, says at times he has been violent or destructive, breaking glass and chandeliers. He has at times said he is poisoned and has refused all food except what she would prepare for him."

    In May 1891, an attendant wrote: "At 8.20, I was talking to Gilbert Cooper in the gallery. Cutbush came up and without a word struck Cooper a violent blow in the face." Another report warned: "Cutbush told Att. (attendant) Slater at dinner twice that he would stick a knife into any of us if he had one."

    A few days later, Mr Bailey, the night attendant, reported: "(Cutbush) was using some very disgusting and threatening language: said that if he had a knife suitable for the job he would rip up the Atts or anyone else that upset him as soon as look at them." He also threatened his mother, who visited him in April 1903, two months before he died. As they left, "Mrs Cutbush tried to kiss her son. He tried to bite her face and then commenced to swear at them".

    The finger of suspicion was first pointed at Cutbush in 1894, by a tabloid newspaper, The Sun, which was no relation to its modern-day successor. The report claimed that despite the popular supposition that the Ripper was dead, he was in fact a mental patient. The Sun's detailed description was clearly that of Cutbush. The suspicion was that the Met covered up his guilt to avoid the embarrassing outcry that might have followed the revelation that the country's most feared serial killer was Superintendent Henry Cutbush's nephew.

    One book has named Cutbush as the No 1 Ripper suspect but others have poured cold water on this theory. Its main weakness is that the last known Ripper victim died in November 1888, at the end of a killing spree that lasted 11 weeks. If Cutbush was the killer, it seems odd that he should commit five murders over so short a period and then stop for more than two years before committing one more assault, which his victim survived. But there is almost no chance that the case can ever be solved and so for as long as the 120-year-old myths persist, Thomas Hayne Cutbush remains on the suspect list.

    Source Citation:"Revealed: medical files of madman who may have been Jack the Ripper." Belfast Telegraph (Belfast, Northern Ireland) (Nov 20, 2008): NA. Custom Newspapers. Gale. New York Public Library. 8 Aug. 2009
    <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=SPN.SP02>.

    Gale Document Number:CJ200393910

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Theory/Fact

    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    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?
    Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory. Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.

    Confirmation holism, also called epistemological holism is the claim that a single scientific theory cannot be tested in isolation; a test of one theory always depends on other theories and hypotheses. There are two aspects of confirmation holism. The first is that interpretation of observation is dependent on theory (sometimes called theory-laden). The second is that evidence alone is insufficient to determine which theory is correct.

    ~~~

    "The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience."

    W. V. Quine, Two Dogmas of Empiricism.


    Georges Seurat, Circus Side Show (Detail), Start Date: 1887. Creation End Date: 1888.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    '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?

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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 sure...to get into areas which detour into other unrelated issues.

    We have enough of those threads already,old bean

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    I doubt if that's him, AP. Just doesn't look right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X