|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Darren C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 9:09 pm: | 
|
Hi,
Just making a few notes about Cutbush. During the inquest of Eddows murder, the police solicitor stopped Joseph Lawende from describing the killer. Why would the police stop this? what reason would there be for a description to not be posted to the public to look out for?
Keeping in mind that Cutbush's uncle was the superintendent Charles Cutbush. Is it possible that Charles covered up just what exactly Thomas was about? Could he instruct all the men on the beat to forget about seeing Thomas about.... just because he is "Charles' "retarted" newphew..so he could go as he pleased in the dark? even though he did contact Syphilis, lets remember it takes years to develop and affect the mind. Thomas use to work as a clerk and traveller in the tea trade. Nichols, Eddowes, Chapman's murders were either directly outside a tea house or near a place that was involved with the tea trade.
Also apparently Thomas studied medical books by day, and frequently returned late with his clothes covered in mud & Blood.
When Thomas was locked in an infirmary with 4 guards, he managed to knock down all 4 men, escape (naked) over a fence, and within a minute emerge into the streets fully clothed. Hardly a sick, retarted man!!
The murders after 1888 coincide with Thomas being still at large. Some of this evidence is really interesting, and I'd love to hear what you people think.
But the possibilities of a cover-up back then... does seem highly likely. Perhaps cover up is rather a strong word... but the would be significant interest in the uncle looking after the newphew.
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
Hi,
I have been looking for the proper thread to discuss the Cutbush coverup.
Cutbush may have been Jack the ripper. Who knows? How could there have been a coverup? What is the thought Proccess. Everyone was involved from Warren to Abberline?
If you believe they all were protecting Cutbush because he was the reletive of a police official. Then why did the detectives throw out names of suspects they knew could not have been the ripper?
For example, Abberline in 1903 throws out the name of George Chapman as a possible ripper suspect. I know Chapman was a piece of garbage, but why name him as a ripper suspect 15 years after the murders if you knew he was not. Was Abberline saying to himself, I think I will throw the name of Chapman out as a ripper suspect just in case someone still might suspect young Thomas.
In Donald Swanson's personal copy of Anderson's book, in the margin were Anderson is talking about knowing who the ripper was, Swanson writes the name Kosminski. Why? Was Kosminski a code name for Cutbush? Did Swanson have the insight to know that one day his personal copy of Anderson's book would be published. So he throws out the name of Kosminski just in case some people might still suspected young Thomas in the furture?
Anderson writes his book. In his book he claims he knows who the ripper was. He claims the ripper was a Jew. He claims the ripper was being protected by his family. He claims that the ripper had been positively identified by a witness. Was he talking about Cutbush? Or did he make up the whole story to protect the family.
Littlechild, Names Tumblety as a likely suspect. He names him in a private letter to a friend. Why? Was he out of the loop, or did he name Tumblety a decade after the ripper murders just in case someone still might believe it was Cutbush.
Macnaughten, He must be the real conspirator. He claims that Cutbush had been cleared. He pens not just one name but three, 1. Druitt 2. Kosminski, I assume the same Kosminski that Swanson writes. 3. Ostrog. He clearly favors Druitt claiming he recieved private information that Druitt was the ripper, and his own family believed him to be. Did Macnoughten pick the name of Druitt because he had commited suicide, and he would be a good choice to throw under the bus?
I believe that Macnoughten did coverup evidence. He admitts he did. He may not have been right about who he thought the ripper was. I do not think that the evidence had anything to do with Cutbush. That might be the biggest flaw in the Cutbush theory.
I just need to have my questions cleared up, and then I am on board.
Your friend, Brad |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2924
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Brad
A great post and you make many fine points which I’m sure will be rewarded with discussion.
I have to say though that I am not a great one for conspiracies and cover-ups, although I do accept that such things are entirely possible.
My simplistic view is of some kind of blundering monster that crashes into walls, quickly explains and apologizes, and then goes off to blunder into another wall.
Sort of a constant stream of damage limitation exercises designed to explain why the walls are damaged without admitting that they are damaged in the first place.
For blundering monster read Scotland Yard attempting a fairly massive damage limitation exercise to contain and control the activities of a senior officer who is basically stark raving mad.
There is a series of cataclysmic cyclical events here which have their measure in a simple sequence of events.
They begin with the murder of unfortunates in Whitechapel.
And they continue with an intimate association to these murders by the very same senior officer who is barking mad.
This association leads to a major series of articles being published in a popular newspaper of the time linking a member of this senior officer’s family to the murders.
This association also leads to the Macnaghten Memorandum which is designed to rebuff these articles.
But meanwhile this association has led to the jailing for life in the most secure institution in the land of the relative to the senior officer.
The culmination of which is the unprecedented suicide of one of the most respected senior police officers of his age.
The mad one I mean.
Of course. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
CB
The only suspect that I am aware of that was pointed out emphaticaley as not being the ripper was Thomas Cutbush. This I find unusual. Why only Thomas and not the many, many suspects that were cleared?
In my opinion there was indeed a coverup with respect to Thomas Cutbush and also Uncle Charles.
It seems that neither of them were rowing with both oars in the water (so to speak).
Although I consider Thomas Cutbush as a good suspect for Jack, in the event that he was not, there is no question that he was protected.
Why only point out in very specific terms that he was not the ripper while not mentioning any of the other released suspects in the same detail.
It's a tough call as is everything to do with good ole JACK.
regards
Julie
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 2:11 am: |
|
Hi Julie,
Thanks for your responce.
Macnoughten wrote the memo in order to clear Cutbush. I agree. The Memo was an in house memo I do not believe Macnaughten ever went public. He wrote the memo out of respect for Charles. He almost had too. The sun was accusing a member of an official's family of being Jack the ripper.
Cutbush belongs on the suspect page. I just got done reading the sun articles. He was quite a wacko. I do not want to discuss the articles. However, I can see why people suspect him.
I would be really be interested in reading any answers you might have regarding my questions I have posted above.
Hi AP,
Thanks for your responce. The more I read about Cutbush the more interested I am. However, when ever I read about a new suspect, I think to myself, they caught him. A good writer can convince a person that anyone could have been Jack the ripper.
Your friend, Brad |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
CB
I would love to answer your questions, however I did not see any questions.
Regards
Julie
|
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 87
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 6:51 pm: |
|
The questions are there. You just have to search for them...
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Hi Julie,
Maybe I should learn the proper use of question marks? I understand How my post could be a little confusing.
I am not trying to discredit Cutbush as a suspect, or dicourage you from your believe. I am just trying to understand the Cutbush coverup theory.
I only really have one question. If the detectives who worked the case knew that Thomas was the ripper, then why did they throw out names of suspects they knew could not have been the ripper?
For example, Abberline in 1903 throws out the name of George Chapman as a possible ripper suspect. Why name Chapman as a ripper suspect 15 years after the murder if you knew he was not? Was Abberline saying to himself, I think I will throw out the name of George Chapman as a ripper suspect just in case someone still might suspect Thomas?
In Donald Swansons personal copy of Anderson's book, in the margin were Anderson is talking about Knowing who the ripper was, Swanson writes the name of Kosminski. Why? Was Kosminski a code name for Cutbush? Did Swanson have the insight to know that one day what he wrote in his personal copy of Andersons book would be published, So he writes the name of Kosminski in the margines, just in case someone still may believe the ripper was Thomas in the future?
Anderson writes his book. In his book he claims he knows who the ripper was. He claims the ripper was a Jew. He claims the ripper was being proteted by his family. He claims that the ripper had been positively identified by a witness. Was he talking about Cutbush? or did he make up the whole story to protect Thomas?
Littledhild, names Tumblety as a likely suspect. He names him in a private letter to a friend. Why? Was he out of the loop, or did he name Tumblety a decade after the murders just in case someone still might have believed the ripper was Thomas?
Macnaughten, He must be the real conspirator. He claims that Cutbush had been cleared. He pens not just one name but three. 1. Druitt 2 Kosminski 3 ostrog. He clearly favors Druitt claiming he had seen private information that Druitt was the ripper, and his own family believed hm to be. Did Macnaughten pick the name Druitt because he had commited suicide, and he was a good canidate to throw under the bus?
Those are my questions. Have any ideas?
I do not mean to be obnoxious or bullish when posting all the examples again, However when ever you ask someone why the police kept throwing names out of suspects they knew could not be the ripper, the answer is, there was a coverup. I think my examples show just how far fetched that might be. Abberline and littlechild name suspects years after the ripper murders. Abberline going as far as to put forth an organ harvesting theory involving two men.
Swanson writting the name of Kosminski in his personal copy of Anderson's book, is real conclusive. No way would he have ever thought that what he had printed in the margines of his book would have been printed in the papers.
Thanks for your responce!
Your friend, Brad |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
