|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Christopher J. Morley
Police Constable
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:45 am: | 
|
Hi AP, everyone, it is stated in Macnaughten's memorandum that little reliance could be placed on the statements made by Cutbush's mother and aunt, who it is said, were of a rather nervous and excitable disposition. You yourself have charmingly described them as 'fairly demented'. I am aware the family had a history of mental instability, though was wondering if Thomas Cutbush, through his strange behaviour, aggression and nocturnal ramblings, contributed to their nervousness and excitability. Did he in fact dominate, terrorise and frighten them?. What fantastic tale did they tell the police about Thomas that little reliance could be placed upon it?. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1852
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
That’s a very good point, Christopher, and both Robert and myself have been looking into that situation.
We have discovered complication after complication, and although our knowledge of the situation may have improved, the same cannot be said for our understanding of the situation.
Our latest understanding is that a highly complicated court case stretching over three years - 1891 to 1893 - was a successful attempt to legally rob young Thomas of his inheritance by having him declared a lunatic. This case was certainly instigated by his mother, who in fact sold Thomas’ inheritance - 6&7 Fieldgate Street - before she was legally allowed to.
Whether his aunt was involved is open to question.
Her testimony at his court trial for stabbing women was certainly damning.
Macnaghten’s statement seems to confirm that both women were attempting to paint young Thomas very black indeed, and one has to reckon on that being part of a general campaign to secure Thomas’s inheritance.
I suppose it is important to note that uncle Charles appeared to play no role in any of this, and that can be viewed in both a positive and negative fashion, positive as it probably means that uncle Charles played no part in the stripping of Thomas’ inheritance, but negative as he appeared complicit in the sentencing of young Thomas for life to Broadmoor.
The disparity in the reactions of the two different families - Colicitt and Cutbush - to the appearance of their male inheritor in court on very serious charges is remarkable.
Please remember that Colicitt was bound over for two hundred quid for exactly the same offences as Thomas, simply because he had the moral support of his family. Thomas on the other hand was sentenced to life in Broadmoor, simply because he did not have the moral support of his family.
Therein is the answer to your interesting point. |
Christopher J. Morley
Police Constable
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
Hello AP, With the abundance of new material discovered about Cutbush, through your excellent research efforts since the publication of your book Jack the Myth, does this mean there may be a revised edition in the pipeline? and if so any chance that any of these will be signed editions? I think I signed the majority of the copies of my own two books, Eliminating the Suspects, and Jack the Ripper 150 Suspects, by request of course, making the rarest copies the ones unsigned! |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Christopher
there is already a revised edition on this board, for free and unsigned.
I've only signed one book in my life and that was for the winner of the poetry competition two years ago.
I doubt whether I would ever again enter the book market for some kind of financial gain, but I would certainly enter that market for the satisfaction of getting something right.
Your positive comments are warmly appreciated. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:04 pm: |
|
"I think I signed the majority of the copies of my own two books, Eliminating the Suspects, and Jack the Ripper 150 Suspects, by request of course, making the rarest copies the ones unsigned!"
You, Sir, are a foul fiend attempting to snare the innocent obsessive collector such as myself. You should be ashamed! (Just kidding. Think about this: I've got a collection of Ripper books autographed to "Sir Robert Anderson"...oh, the historians will have fits over that some day..)
AP, allow me to second the desire to see you re-enter the book market. Yes, I've printed out the revised Jack the Myth, and it sits next to my original, but there is something about a book...I'm getting a little verklempt...
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Christopher J. Morley
Police Constable
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
Hello Robert, I can feel the itching in my writing hand beginning once again. I may shortly have to undertake the long climb up into the old dusty attic to commence on yet another limited Ripper title 'signed of course' ready to once more ensnare the obsessive collector such as yourself!... |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
