|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 1:21 pm: |       |
Part One
Now one comes to the events of 1891, where Thomas Hayne Cutbush (THC) is arrested for the ‘jobbing’ of two women in Kennington, and is subsequently sentenced to be detained at ‘Her Majesty’s Pleasure’ for life.
This court case has been the subject of much speculation and discussion on these boards, especially when it has been compared to the very similar case of Colicitt who was merely bound over into the surety of his father for a £250 bond for committing exactly the same offences as Cutbush, this partly being the result of impassioned defence from lawyers, family and friends of the young Colicitt.
It has often been remarked that a similar appeal and effort was not made on behalf of THC by the Cutbush clan of East London; his own case appearing to show his own family doing exactly the opposite, in that his mother and aunt happily proclaimed that the boy was a dangerous lunatic who had attempted to kill them and a servant girl of the household; and the immensely influential Charles Henry Cutbush - a senior executive officer of Scotland Yard whose reputation had just earned him a handsome gift of fifty gold sovereigns from the Police Board - was strangely silent over the fate of his brother’s only son.
But I do believe Robert has found the answer to this this riddle and mystery, for unbeknown to us the court case above was not the only legal battle taking place within the Cutbush clan in that fateful year, for in 1891 certain other members of the family were also in court, but for entirely different reasons.
In that same year legal applications and notices were posted in the press in an attempt to establish the exact whereabouts of THC’s father - Thomas Taylor Cutbush (TTC) - as properties owned by the Cutbush clan had been passed down to him (TTC)… these properties being NOS 6 & 7 Fieldgate Street in the parish of St Mary Whitechapel.
This attempt to trace TTC either proved fruitless - probably because TTC was too busy wenching young brides down under - or it was proven that TTC had actually died… my instinct tells me the latter.
So by 1892 the properties in question had been duly inherited by THC - the only heir of TTC - and it was in 1893 that we see the properties have been commandeered by his mother, Kate Cutbush, who has conveniently once again adopted her married name of ‘Cutbush’ rather than ‘Hayne’, as she had called herself in the 1871 Census when her husband had left her high and dry with the young THC.
Obviously by the time of the 1881 Census, Kate Hayne had realised that there was a very real and material benefit to retaining the married name of ‘Cutbush’.
The court proceedings of 1893 show us that THC’s mother went ahead and accepted an offer of payment for the properties mentioned - and actually belonging to her son THC - and that this gross illegality only came to light when the final documents had to be signed by all the parties concerned.
For of course the main party concerned, the owner THC, was not there, on account of being banged up for life in Broadmoor.
However when the judge was informed that THC was a ‘lunatic’ he immediately allowed a form of temporary trust to be established enabling Kate Cutbush to sell the property on her son’s behalf.
One can say without any hesitation whatsoever that under no other circumstance possible within the British legal system - apart from that of a person being officially declared a ‘lunatic’ - could the sale of these properties proceeded without the legal consent of the true owner, providing that the owner is living.
So to happily declare that THC was a lunatic who had attempted to kill members of his own family was to the direct advantage of all in the Cutbush family, especially Kate Cutbush, as this would provide the only legal means possible to wrest THC’s inheritance away from him and then distribute this ill-gotten largesse amongst themselves.
The two properties mentioned in the court case probably only represent the tip of the iceberg that the young THC had inherited from his father’s estate, but the temporary trust established by the judge would have allowed the plundering of the entire estate.
Ah! Do we now understand the long silence from uncle Charles concerning his brother’s only son?
Now we are able to see where the Hayne sisters were going with their wild and extravagant claims concerning THC’s lunatic behaviour.
What an easy task for the Cutbush clan to claim the inheritance that they felt should not go to a simpleton like Thomas Hayne Cutbush.
So off went Thomas to Broadmooor for the rest of his life while the Cutbush clan split his inheritance between them, and that should have been the end of the story… but it all sort of blew up in their faces didn’t it?
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3186
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 3:25 pm: | |
Very persuasive, AP - there does seem to have been a financial interest in having Thomas declared insane. I must try to get to London, or Enfield, and try to nail TTC in the 1851 census. Then we might have a clearer idea of who could have left him property. There was a Thomas Cutbush died Edmonton 1884 - a year before the last time that TTC's whereabouts were established. Coincidence? He was 80, so he may have been TTC's grandfather, or even his father. Or perhaps an older brother left him something?
I'd just like to make a couple of points. The financial interest angle is very interesting, but it can also work against the idea of THC being Jack - frame-up theories become a possibility. You're wielding a double-edged sword here, AP!
The other point is, it's difficult to see how TTC could have been Uncle Charles's brother. Just what relation the pair were to each other, I'm jiggered if I know.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Robert
you are entirely right.
The court case involving the dissolution of Thomas Hayne Cutbush's legal inheritance from him after he was declared a 'lunatic' in 1893 is the best evidence I have seen yet that young Tom was indeed not Jack the Ripper.
I wield that double-edged sword with utmost glee.
You know my delight in firing my service pistol into my foot.
I haven't finished with this yet, Robert, and by the time 'we' do I hope to have finally done with the Cutbush clan.
I too have had problems with uncle Charles and TTC being brothers... they are the same age for a start.
My inkling is that the entire solution does lay with London property.
Anyways part two should be up tomorrow, and that gets interesting.
But please do not believe for one second that I have given up young Tom as the best suspect yet for JtR, it is just that he has developed a limp, suddenly. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 680
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
Hi AP
I certainly must say I have utmost respect for your desire to take a new look at your suspect. If other authors/casebook members would only do likewise with their suspects/theories.
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3190
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Hi AP
I'll see if I can get hold of the 1884 TC's will, also establish when Clara and Kate died and how much they left.
I feel that TTC and Uncle Charles were related - I can't see Sir Melville getting it totally wrong - but the specific word "nephew" may perhaps be due to THC calling Supt Cutbush "uncle." My cousin's daughter in Australia calls me uncle even though I'm only her mum's cousin in England.
Looking forward to part two.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3191
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
I know it's a bit off topic, but I couldn't resist posting this :
Feb 16th 1911.("Times")
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 8:10 am: | |
Not off topic at all, Robert.
As a restaurant it means that 7 Fieldgate Street was a substantial property... well worth selling.
It's probably a MacDonalds now.
Thanks Gary
you say the nicest things.
I'm not one to brandish my service pistol about when my own foot is available as the best target.
Yes, Thomas seems to have developed a sudden lameness of recent, but I have no intention of throwing the boy into a wheelchair and pushing him about for the rest of my sad life.
Which is of course what many others do with their suspects.
One simply has to learn that when a suspect can't walk anymore he must be tipped into the sea off Brighton Pier, and then drinks drunk in the gay bar that was once the Police Seaside Home. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3196
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
Don't push him off yet, AP. There's plenty more info to come in, and the wheelchair may become motorised.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Part Two
You see… what should have been a planned, very quiet and unremarkable retirement from the public stage of events for Thomas Hayne Cutbush suddenly got very noisy indeed.
For the brown stuff well and truly hit the revolving fan when an enterprising reporter decided in 1894 that THC was none other than Jack the Ripper and wrote a series of articles in the Sun newspaper that caused some furious itching and scratching across the metropolis of London, especially in Scotland Yard.
What had been a nice tidy and discrete family affair suddenly became very messy indeed.
What had been a minor hiccup in the proceedings of the LVP - barely noticed by the media or anyone else - suddenly became a massive heart attack for all concerned.
As Thomas Hayne Cutbush - simple lunatic - the boy and his curt judicial proceedings had barely scratched their way into the press, but as Jack the Ripper, Tom was very big news indeed.
So big that one of the most senior police officials in the LVP felt obliged to put pen to paper in an undignified and clearly flawed attempt to dispute and discredit the Sun’s journalistic adventure… and hence we arrive at the biggest pile of manure that has ever been shovelled together by a senior police official that we now all call ‘The Macnaghten Memoranda’.
The Sun was patently picking at an open wound, one that Scotland Yard wanted to close up again very quickly, for the reputation of one of its most senior and respected officers, Charles Henry Cutbush - when not the entire force - was about to be trashed once and for all.
The Comedy of Errors had begun in earnest.
For it was one thing to rob a simple young man of his inheritance and have him committed as a lunatic for the rest of his life in an institution where his voice would never be heard again, but quite another thing when that same young man’s name was headline news all over the capital, and that name ’Cutbush’ was burning a mark on the lips of senior police and home office officials.
You could easily rob Tom Tom of his inheritance but not Jack.
No bloody wonder that good old uncle Charles sat down in his kitchen in 1895 in front of his daughters, pulled out his trusty service pistol and blew a big hole in his head. It was the only honourable thing to do.
For it is most difficult to imagine a scenario where the brother of a man would stand idly by as his nephew - the only son of his brother - is blatantly stripped of his rightful and lawful inheritance by a clan within the family who are not even direct bloodline relatives, and have no lawful or other claim to that inheritance.
But we have to accept that this is exactly what happened in 1893, uncle Charles stayed out of the case, when in reality it would have taken but one appearance by Executive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush of Scotland Yard - resplendent in his glittering uniform - in the court to argue the case for the direct male relatives of Thomas Taylor Cutbush for the ‘trust’ not to have been passed to Kate Cutbush as easily as it was.
But uncle Charles did not do that.
The inference obviously being that uncle Charles was a willing partner to the stripping of his nephew’s inheritance because he was to receive a portion of that valuable pie himself.
The timing of events seem to lead in this direction:
1891 - THC sentenced to Broadmoor as a lunatic.
- Legal action begun to locate his father, TTC.
- Uncle Charles moves to a splendid new house in Stockwell
1892 - Legal action continued to trace TTC.
1893 - Kate Cutbush takes control of THC’s hereditaments.
1894 - The Sun names THC as Jack the Ripper.
- Macnaghten writes his catastrophic memoranda.
1895 - Charles Henry Cutbush blows his head off.
1901 - Kate Cutbush moves from Albert Street.
1903 - THC dies in Broadmoor.
1910 - Kate Cutbush doing very nicely indeed, thank you very much, got her own business, nice shop in a respectable and prosperous area selling expensive chinaware… so well off that she gets burgled and a ‘considerable quantity of jewellery’ is stolen… not bad for someone who was once a ‘shop assistant’… ta very much!
(Next thrilling instalment follows shortly.)
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3200
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 1:59 pm: | |
AP, just to put a couple of points in the way of that wheelchair's plunge off the pier :
Let's not forget that Kate was listed as shopwoman, china trade in 1891, at the very time that Tom was going through the courts - i.e. before she could have got her hands on his money (though she is listed as simply "assistant" in 1881, so she may have bought the shop where she worked some time after the 1891 census).
Also, Uncle Charles's will of 1889 shows him already living at Stockwell - before he could have got his hands on Tom's dosh.
Robert
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Almost right, Robert
Kate moved to premises in Brixton shortly after leaving Albert Street where she actually 'managed' the china shop, but by the time she next surfaces in the press she is the owner of premises further up the road.
(I'll post the different addresses when sober.)
To be honest with you I believe that uncle Charles moved to Stockwell with his fifty gold sovereigns in 1894... that was a powerful lot of money in them days.
But we must remember the fiasco with THC's inheritance begins in 1891.
I'm not putting Tom Tom in the water yet, I'm just trying to repair him after his mum and uncle threw him down the stairs.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1189
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
Have been following some of this AP and Robert.Really fascinated by the apparent scullduggery Of this clan!Poor old Thomas----talk about dysfunctional family life and the archtypal
scapegoat!
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3207
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
Natalie, it's a very tangled web, that's for sure! And there are so many angles.
Robert |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 510
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
Just to raise a trivial point - where the charge against Cutbush has been quoted as "jobbing" women, isn't this a misreading of "jabbing"?
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3208
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 2:50 am: | |
Hi Chris
I always took it as slang for "stab or jab or prod in the bottom" as Sir Melville puts it in quotes.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3209
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 4:21 am: | |
AP, re Kate, it's true that by 1910 she seems to own the shop, but in the 1901 census when she's living in Durand Gardens with Clara her employment status is given as "worker". This is some years after Tom's incarceration etc, so she waited a long time to buy that shop. I'm wondering if Clara (living on own means) died some time after 1901 and left Kate some money.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3210
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 6:03 am: | |
On the other hand, this item of May 1st 1909 seems to show a pretty swanky area. At some point between 1891 and 1901 they moved here, and it seems to have been a step up for them.
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 9:25 am: | |
Hi Robert & AP
I have enjoyed reading this thread, and if it is of any interest I have here a note of all the wills registered at the National Probate Register, in the name Cutbush from 1890-1896. If you think they would be of interest I will be happy to type them up.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3214
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
Hi John
Thanks indeed for that generous offer. I have Supt Cutbush's (written in 1889). It occurs to me that Kate should have made a will when Thomas was sent to Broadmoor, as it would have been pointless leaving anything to him. But then, people do put this sort of thing off, so she may not have made a will until later, if at all. But certainly, any will would be of interest. Do you mean the list, or the wills themselves?
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Hi Robert,
I am afraid it is only a list of wills (with a few details) if any of them are of sufficient interest you would have to get the full will from The Probate Registry www.courtservice.gov.uk
Best Regards
John Savage |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3215
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
OK, John. Could we have the list then, please (if it's not too long).
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
Here we go Robert
EXTRACT FROM NATIONAL PROBATE CALENDERS 1890 –1896
1890
Cutbush Edward, Esq. 15/111890 The will with a codicil of Edward Cutbush late of Heathside – Upper Richmond Road, Barnes in the County of Surrey Esquire who died 22/09/1890 was proved at the Principal Registry by Rosa Elizabeth Cutbush of Heathside widow the relict and John Edward Gripper of Lyndhurst Upper Richmond Road gentleman the executors. – Estate £17,037 2s 5d.
1891
Cutbush Elizabeth
Personal Estate £5,810 0s 9d.
Resworn August 1891 £9,666 19s 6d.
The will of Elizabeth Cutbush formerly of Hillingdon End near Uxbridge in the County of Middlesex but late of 9 Lismore Road Eastborne in the County of Susses widow who died 13 March 1891 at 9 Lissmore Road was proved at the Principal Registry by Mary Ann Flowerday of 65 Wharton Road Kensington Middlesex spinster the surviving executor
Cutbusb Hannah
Personal Estate £381 15s. 2d.
26th. January the will of Hannah Cutbush late of Brenchley vicarage in the County of Kent spinster who died 11th. Jan 1891 at Brenchley in the said County was proved at the Principal Registry by Henry Storr of Matfield near Brenchley esquire the sole executor
Cutbush Horatio Richard
Personal Estate £6,285 14s 6d.
4 June the will of Horatio Richard Cutbush late of The College Maidstone in the County of Kent newspaper proprietor who died 1 may 1891 at the college was proved at the Principal Registry by Jane Cutbush of The College widow the relict the sole executor
1892 & 1893
No wills recorded in name Cutbush
1894
Cutbush Jane of The College Maidstone widow died 27/01/1894 probate London 6th August to Frederick Cutbush journalist Effects £4,414 7s. 0d.
1895
Cutbush Joseph Jepson of 114 East-Surrey Grove Peckham Surrey died 11th. March 1895. Administration London on 1 May to Maria Cutbush. Effects £167 11s. 0d.
1896
Cutbush Charles of 3 Burnley-Road Stockwell Surrey died 5th. March 1896 Probate London 27th. March to Anne Cutbush widow Effects £521 1s. 11d.
Cutbush Edward of 5 Rigault Road Fulham Park Middlesex gentleman died 15th. July 1896 Probate London to Cecilia Waverley Willcock spinster, Arthur Sandilands gentleman and Henry Hammond dealer in horse. Effects £354 17s 0d.
Hope there is something of interest there.
Bes Regards
John Savage
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
Part Three
One must return to an earlier confusion… the similar crimes and trials of Cutbush and Colicitt. The confusion here is nothing new, back in January of this year, RJ Palmer, Chris Scott and my good self attempted to throw some light on the vexatious subject, but all retired from the battlefield none the wiser, in fact probably even more confused than when we started. It is well worth reading the posts from way back then - on the ‘Spelling of Colicitt’ thread through January - to get a good overview of an entirely confusing situation.
That this confusion was shared by both the press and police of the time is entirely evident from the press report taken from the ‘Centralia Enterprise and Tribune’ - 14th March 1891 - found by Chris Scott; and then the sad circumstances surrounding the demise of the professional career of Inspector Race who was the arresting and prosecuting officer in both cases.
Race appears to have been placed in very awkward situation indeed, that of condemning one young man in favour of the other, and for this he was originally lauded and praised, but later it becomes obvious that it was this very dilemma that ultimately wrecked his career… and health.
It cannot have been an easy decision on Race’s part to watch Colicitt walk free whilst Cutbush was condemned for life to a living hell… for something he may well not have done.
I too have been haunted by my easy condemnation of young Thomas; and am left with the unhappy feeling that I have blindly joined a long queue of ignorant folk who have been pelting the wretched lad with rotten fruit while he lays helpless in the stocks, gagged and blindfolded.
Particularly haunting are the words the young and impressionable lad spoke to his captors while in the waiting room of the court:
‘I could not commit the offence I am charged with. I read of a man in the newspapers stabbing girls at Clapham about five weeks back, and he is the man you want.’
This was not the defence of a complete and utter ‘lunatic’, this was the defence of a reasonable, well-educated and well-mannered young man, who read his newspapers, was acutely aware of the world around him, was aware that somehow someone had made a terrible mistake, and mistakenly and naively thought that common sense, good manners and logic would rescue him.
But poor Thomas had fallen amongst thieves.
For there in court was his auntie Clara - whom he probably thought would quickly dismiss the charges against him - but she gave damning evidence on his account: the boy had gone mad through excessive study, hadn’t worked for two years, was a burden on the family, so application had been made to the local parish to cart him off to the loony bin, boy had escaped, had a knife, danger to all…
Damning evidence from his own family.
But of course Thomas had been clearly identified by the witness, Isabel Fraser Anderson, as the man who had torn her dress with a ‘sharp instrument’.
Just read this and then imagine that you are Mr G Kirk, counsel for Thomas’ defence:
‘She (Ms Anderson) looked round, and saw a man, who immediately ran away. She did not see the man’s face, but he was in appearance like the prisoner.’
‘So madam,’ begins Mr Kirk. ‘You mean to say that your attacker was dressed in a suit of clothes, had two legs and two arms, topped off with a hat, just like my client here in the dock?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘Then, madam, my client is surely guilty for he carries all of the distinctive distinguishing marks of which you speak. He’s all yours milord!’
What a farce!
The Goons could have done better.
I need a bottle of brandy before part four.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3217
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
Very definitely, John. Thanks very much!
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
Reading through my last post I realised that my comments may have offended some dear friends.
Of course when I referred to joining a queue of 'ignorant folk' I was referring to those who may think Thomas Cutbush was the 'Kennington Jobber', which he patently was not.
That was Colicitt.
I have not wavered in my belief that Thomas and his uncle Charles were somehow involved in the Whitechapel murders.
All research and information in this regard is highly valuable.
Sorry. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3219
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 6:18 pm: | |
Hi AP
Rest assured that I, for one, wasn't in any way offended.
Actually, Sir Melville's words "but little reliance could be placed on the statements made by his mother or his aunt" could be construed as indicating, coming at the point in his memorandum that they do, that Kate and Clara were indeed trying to put Tom in the frame for the Ripper murders. Sir Melville was after all attempting to exonerate Thomas, and this quote could be a dismissal of hostile witnesses.
I'd like to get more info about this whole property business, Fieldgare St, TTC etc.
I don't know if THC was the Ripper. Certainly at present there isn't enough evidence to convict him (or anyone else). But he's well worth investigating. And even if he turns out to be innocent, this story is clearly one which - like the Druitt story - has its own fascination.
Let's have the next part AP.
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 1:46 pm: | |
AP--I'm not entirely convinced that Cutbush wasn't the jobber (but I do retain the right to be considered 'ignorant folk'). It still seems to me that Colicitt was basically a harmless half-wit. He wasn't really "caught in the act", was he? The women seem to admit that he was merely tugging at their dresses. The man with the pointed instrument wasn't positively identified. The legal intrigues implied in the Times pieces are remarkable---the lack of punishment in the Colicitt case, strange stuff.
A strange footnote. In the case of Reginald Saunderson, another son of a civil servant, who slit the throat of a woman in 1895 and fled to Ireland (where he wrote a Ripper letter)... Who shows up in the courtroom, but our old friend Donald Swanson? Surely the appearance of the chief desk-jockey in the Ripper investigation is beyond coincidence? The conclusion to be drawn is that Swanson had not positively identified the Ripper in 1894 in Hove, as the Marginalia would have us believe. There was still--somewhere---at the very least a nagging doubt. Saunderson certainly wasn't the Ripper, but Swanson's unnecessary appearance in court shows a desire to check the matter out. What drove him? Guilt? Doubt? Intrigue?
(Message edited by rjpalmer on October 15, 2004) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:13 pm: | |
The fact of the matter is no policeman regardless of rank had any knowledge who 'jack' was.
He simply was never caught, and i dare say any criminal charged with a knive assault over the years following 1888, was viewed upon as a possible.
We know more today than the entire British police force were able to comprehend during that period.
Richard. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
RJ
Yes it is all some kind of weird science.
I must read again through the Colicitt trial before I comment fully, but I do remember my earlier comments concerning Colicitt's father - a very wealthy Jewish jeweller - and the reasons why the Yard may have taken a softly-softly approach to the case.
Fifty gold sovereigns might be the answer.
I have not yet checked to see how many other Metropolitan police officers received the splendid award of such a princely sum for merely being a Metropolitian police officer behind a desk, but you can bet the next bottle of Spanish brandy that I drink that I will.
Not many I bet.
Swanson?
Guilt. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3236
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
If TTC did inherit some property, one person he may have got it from is Luke Flood Cutbush.
This man lived in Fieldgate St. Although described as a house painter, he was clearly a man of substance.
Extract from a "Times" item April 3rd 1856 :
He had a Brighton connection. Aug 9th 1828 :
In 1831 a Luke Cutbush married a Mary Mears in Tottenham. Was he going through the sisters?
He died in 1872 aged 67.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
All very strange this.A few points though AP.Even though the Sun Newspaper ran four days of full page coverage on the highjinks of young Thomas which di in fact seem to portray a rather odd person-breaking out of detention,racing through houses and up and over walls and through back yards-at one point flying upstairs and changing clothes
so he would avoid detection by the team of folk in pursuit while another time racing out with just his shirt-tails billowing in the wind-all this as well as writing to various eminent chaps and talking about their attempts to poison him etc.It sounds to me that Thomas might have had some "episodes" of mental illness at least.
Another point is that the Macnaghten memo was an internal document-I agree it was to refute the claims of the Sun but to his police colleagues not to the editor of the Sun so that he would refute the claims nationally.Quite the contrary it was kept quiet about for a long time and appears to have only been seen by certain police. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3240
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
This will give some idea of the value of the two Fieldgate Street properties. July 2nd 1884 :
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Nicely done,Robert
I've come across this Luke Flood Cutbush before, but I'm damned if I can remember the context... must have another look for him.
As regards the sisters and marriage... like father like son perhaps? Or uncle even?
Sorry I haven't been around much lately, I've been in 'Stoddart Land' for days now and am still no wiser!
Natalie
Good points, but I for one have always viewed the Magnaghten Memo as being more historically important because it was an 'internal' memo. Such documents get to the heart of the matter, rather than useless documents intended for public dissemination... but I do intend to address this issue in part four if I can ever lay the brandy bottle down. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3246
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
AP, I haven't got any further with the Stoddarts, either. There was a Thomas Taylor arrived in Auckland from England 1865, and his name is next to a Charlotte Stoddart on the passenger list, but this is a quirk of the alphabet.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1403
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
No worries, Robert
I'm going to be down under for five weeks from Jan next year so will try some local research while there.
That quirky TT is probably the same one I found in the Wellington cemetary next to Agnes Cutbush.
On another note, it has just occured to me that young Tom's stay at Islington/Holloway prison in either 1891 or 1892 might be explained by him having been called to appear at the court hearings concerning his inheritance... when a court demands that a person be present, he will be present even if serving a life sentence, sectioned or at Her Majesty's Pleasure, and it would be common to station him at such an ordinary prison whilst court is in session.
Just a thought.
The best I've been able to do with the Stoddarts so far is the following, not much, but it does mean that somewhere out there is a resume of the family, but toshed if I can find it:
'STODDART.
Taieri District.
Bio for Mr Richard Stoddart.
STODDART.
Wellington.
Mrs Christina Stoddart, died on the 27th of March 1892.'
The two entries are together so would think they are linked. References come from an Otago newspaper. Name unknown as yet. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
