Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thomas Cutbush

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

  • Thomas Cutbush

    Discussion for Cutbush in this Thread.
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

  • #2
    It may have escaped your attention How, but there isn't one, mainly because Cutbush wasn't Jack the Ripper, Hell even the cops at the time said that much! Why not move onto a more realistic suspect like, umm, James Maybrick?

    Comment


    • #3
      Peter:

      I don't know if you've been following the work A.P. Wolf and R.C.Linford have been doing over at Casebook, but there's some decent threads there that deserve a read.

      I know you're going to mention Cutbush stabbing women in the keister a couple of years after 1888 and that that basically eliminates Cutbush ? Tell me the truth....

      Well...lets look at it this way.

      A serial killer doesn't usually change a successful m.o. But for a moment here, what if ....?

      And if the police {Anderson,in this instance} were right....then where does that leave Sir Jim?
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact [email protected]

      Comment


      • #4
        What I would be interested in hearing comment on is why the Sun newspaper named Cutbush as Jack the Ripper ... then nothing came of it. Or did it? Was he able to sue for defamation? Where did he live? What was his address? What links him with the murders? Did he write a confessional diary?

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Peter

          You say nothing came of it. But there was something - the Macnaghten memorandum.

          Robert

          Comment


          • #6
            Let me qualify that ... nothing came of it in terms of a prosecution ... in fact various members of the press, prominent politicians and police officers of the time offered other suspects after Cutbush was named, in fact the only thing they agreed on was that they couldn't agree on anything. Yes, I'm interested in Cutbush as a suspect, interested to know why the Sun should name him as JTR and not be sanctioned for it. Or were they?

            Apologies Robert, I don't know what part of the world you are from, but in GB a few years ago we had a situation whereby a young black lad was attacked and killed at a bus stop. His name was Stephen Lawrence. Five white youths were arrested for the crime, but for various legal reasons the case against them collapsed. A national newspaper, strangely enough The Sun, NAMED them as the murderers and DARED them to sue if they thought they could. To this day they have yet to sue.

            I'm not completely up to speed with Cutbush's story, but I'd be interested to find out if any legal action was taken, after all even old Leather Apron was rumoured to have received some compo for having his name defamed.

            And as for the McNaghten Memoranda, in my mind that little piece of writing has done the world of ripperology more harm than any other piece of 'evidence'. People have seized on that and used it as evidence of guilt. Read it again, all McNaghten is saying is that any of the three men named would be a more likely candidate than Cutbush. It would be kind of like me saying "Rio Ferdinand? Pamela Anderson, J-Lo and Britney Spears would make better central defenders than him!" Or, if you're a yank, "Mike Tyson? Pamela Anderson, J-Lo, Brit ... you get the picture? I think McNaghten was ripping the pi55 - and all that stuff about "the more I think it over" or whatever it was that he said ... well, the fact is that Druitt wasn't JTR and has been proven so.

            Anyway, time to get off my soap box.

            Comment


            • #7
              Well Peter, I'm from England and have a United-crazy nephew. I just tell him that they've never been the same since the days of Best, Charlton and Law.

              I'm not sure if a lunatic can sue for libel, at least while he's a lunatic (which Cutbush was until his death in Broadmoor in 1903). But even if he can, I can think of reasons why it might not happen - the family might not want the publicity...or the lunatic might actually be guilty of what he's accused of.

              If he were guilty, though, there'd have been no point in prosecuting him - as a lunatic, he couldn't swing. In fact, attendants at asylums complained that some lunatics were aware of their immunity, and could kill warders with impunity.

              The case against Cutbush is still a-building, and I know we haven't yet proved his guilt. He's my personal front-runner, though.

              PS When was it proved that Druitt couldn't have done it?

              Robert

              Comment


              • #8
                For Peter, or anyone else who's interested, the "Sun" newspaper reports have been obtained by Natalie Severn and transcribed by Chris Scott. AP Wolf had previously used them in "Jack the Myth." They can be found at :
                http://casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/18206.html

                Robert

                Comment


                • #9
                  Her Majesty's Pleasure was a terrible fate, even extending to the burial of the criminal after his demise.
                  His body and mind were sewn up forever.
                  I am quite frankly astonished that the Sun ever obtained permission to interview Thomas Cutbush in Broadmoor, and do feel that they had the blessing of a senior official in the Home Office or Scotland Yard to do so.
                  The situation is quite unique.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well, it was proven that MJD couldn't be our man when he was found to be playing cricket in Dorset or wherever on at least two occasions that coincided with the murders. Similarly, Prince Eddie was found to be in Scotland at the time of two or more murders, owing to royal court records, though the guide who recently showed me round the murder sites reckoned that the court records could have been faked. Oh please! Get me the flight logs for Guantanamo Bay!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Peter...

                      What A.P. just mentioned regarding the accessibility of The Sun to interview or even see Cutbush is one of the reasons [ of several ] that I think A.P. is in the forefront of current Ripper research [ along with,of course,Robert Linford and Chris Scott,to name two more..].

                      Cutbush has been brushed aside casually in documentaries [ John Ross of The Black Museum does the dustjob in one of those documentaries ] as a non-starter. However,let me ask this: What if it were found out that another suspect had been questioned along the lines of this Sun meets Cutbush affair? Would we discard that so easily ?

                      Cutbush,of course,began his own quasi-Renwyck Williams imitation with stabbing women in the backside after the Autumn of 1888. There's nothing etched in stone that a serial killer must continue a pattern of evisceration [ the WM ]and not be able to change to a similar [ knifing ] but slightly safer way of harming people...

                      The argument about Chapman [ from mutilation to poisoning ] is harder to fathom,but with Cutbush,despite the less severe attacks for certain, its certainly worth pursuing Cutbush in any event.
                      To Join JTR Forums :
                      Contact [email protected]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hmmm ... have read the articles, started skipping through them when I found they weren't saying anything at all, they don't even name Cutbush! What a load of twaddle, some nonsense about a grey coat and being 5' 9" tall ... well whoopy doo! I'm off back to Maybrick, I'll leave you lot to waste your time on this thread.

                        Peter

                        P.S. Cutbush wasn't JTR - he needn't detain us.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How, the main reason that some people dismiss Cutbush out of hand does seem to be the "lull" after Kelly, plus the comparatively innocuous jobbing.

                          It's a point I take on board, but I believe there's plenty more info to come to light yet.

                          Thanks for the compliments, How. Being bracketed with AP and Chris Scott is praise indeed (even if undeserved).

                          Robert

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Robert is quite right, Thomas would not have had recourse to legal action within Broadmoor, he was what we call today 'sectioned'.
                            His own immediate family were pursuing their own legal actions to disinherit Thomas from his inheritance during this time period, and from their witness statements at trial wanted Thomas locked up forever and forever amen.
                            It was in their own best and financial interest for Thomas to be sectioned in Broadmoor.
                            The fact that Chief Executive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush was silent during this busy time period is not merely a reflection of his own impending doom brought on by a - documented - increasing personal insanity, but also that he had applied for the job as Chief Constable of another county.
                            He certainly did not want to rock the boat at this time.

                            I would be highly interested to know of any other high ranking police official in the entire history of policing in the United Kingdom who has sat down at his table and then blown his brains out in front of his family.
                            Especially when that officer was involved in an investigation into a series of murders in which his nephew is named as a suspect.

                            How, you say the nicest things.

                            You're welcome and deserving of any kind words,A.P. You've done a lot of hard work [as R.C. has likewise ] and its to all our benefit to read what you folks dig up...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So let's get this straight ... his uncle was mental, he was mental and he couldn't sue because, err, he just couldn't ... and somehow that all adds up to make him Jack the Ripper. Right.

                              Thomas Cutbush wasn't Jack the Ripper.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X