|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1954
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 4:39 pm: | 
|
During the LVP Broadmoor boasted a special wing for persons who were serving Her Majesty's Pleasure, the criminal lunatics in the wing were called 'Her Majesty's Pleasure People', and I quote:
'That is, people acquitted of murder on the ground of insanity, and sentenced to imprisonment during Her Majesty's Pleasure.'
(The Times. Jan 13th, 1865).
Trouble is that Thomas never killed anyone.
Or did he?
Also the case of one George Victor Townley, convicted of several offences including the murder of a woman, who was the frenetic subject of much argument between the forces of law and order, including parliament, as to his degree of insanity... and in fact his case then went on to form the basis of later sentencing policy which probably influenced young Thomas' case.
You see George Victor Townley was a police superintendent. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4375
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
AP, I'm perplexed about the law in these cases. If these people were "acquitted" does that mean that they'd stood trial, even though insane? Thomas's case doesn't seem to have got as far as a trial, on the other hand lunatics could be summoned from their asylums to attend court, couldn't they?
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1955
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Perplexed is the best way to be, Robert.
If you read the Townley case it will give a better insight, but even that won't help a lot.
Basically the law was flexible because it was changing, so it was entirely possible to have someone sent to Broadmoor without trial as long as you had a Secretary of State to sign papers, an under-Secretary would not do, so you needed to pull strings to get that done... but a definite is that no person sentenced to Broadmoor at HMP could ever leave those prison gates again for any reason, even a court summons.
But surprisingly I have found that they were allowed postal and other communication, and even visits.
It does appear that all inmates during that time were only allowed to be buried at the little graveyard outside the gates of Broadmoor, so young Thomas must be there.
We should arrange a visit. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Hi A. P.
I am acquainted with the case of Townley. He murdered a young woman who had broken their engagement (when they were alone together) and he surrendered to her grandfather. That was in 1863. The case is one of those untidy ones that foes of capital punishment like to overlook - you see, Townley came from a respectable upper middle class family. When he was tried for the murder he was represented by "Mr. Stephen", the future Maybrick and Lipski Justice Stephen - and father of James Kenneth Stephen. He was also examined by Dr. Forbes Winslow (interesting how all these strands keep intertwining). Townley's reluctant defense was insanity (he felt he was not insane). His family tried to prove he was, and if not was getting mentally ill since the crime. Baron Martin gave Townley a very fair trial, but the jury took six minutes to find him guilty (but not insane).
His family used influence to get the Home Secretary Sir George Grey to have a sanity hearing on the basis that Townley was now insane. This was being conducted when the prisoner's solicitor decided to take advantage of a sloppy law "Further Provision for the Confinement and Maintenance of Insane People - 3 & 4 Victoria, c. 54". This law said that with prisoners under sentence of death, if you get two Justices of the Peace and two doctors to certify the prisoner is insane the Home Secretary must remove the prisoner to an insane asylum. Though they subsequently discovered a technical error (regareding where the magistrates were to come from), the Home Secretary acted on their certificate and respited Townley. This action by the solicitor and his committee upset the public and part of the legal community in Derbyshire (where the murder occurred). It did not help matters that at this time a relatively poor man named Samuel Wright was hanged for his wife's murder, despite better evidence that he was insane [the situation here somewhat resembles the 1922 uproar about Ronald True and Henry Jacoby]. Sir George Grey dismissed carping at the defects of the certificate - he said the date of the execution was approaching and he was concerned about saving the life of an insane man. Most people felt Townley was saved by a trick.
Now the reason I feel that the Townley case is not cited by opponents of capital punishment. The purpose of opposing capital punishment is that it is inhumane to take a person's life - that prison is far more humane. There was one person who disagreed with this. His name was George Victor Townley. On February 12, 1865, after one year of the "kinder" punishment, he jumped over a staircase railing unto a stone floor twenty three feet below. He landed on his skull and was pronounced dead. Apparently he did not think imprisonment was kinder.
A good legal review of the case is in NINE VERDICTS ON VIOLENCE by Jack Smith - Hughes (London: Cassell & Co., Ltd., 1958). The second chapter - essay "The Broken Engagement: A Controvertial Reprieve" (p. 23 - 50) is about Townley. On another thread I discussed the Wadsworth and Stepney Murders of 1860, and mentioned that Arthur Conan Doyle wrote of them in a series of essays on true crimes. The third one he wrote was about Townley, whom he renamed "George Victor Parker" because his relatives were still alive.
I am interested in you saying that Townley was a police superintendent. This is not noted in Smith-Hughes chapter.
Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Thanks for all that, Jeff.
I didn't realise that the poor old buggar topped himself either!
Yes, in the original Times report, Townley is designated with the title of 'police superintendent', but I believe he was retired by then. I'm going to have another look, and if I can find anything more about his police career I'll post it in due course.
There can't be too many senior police officers who top themselves, so if true, we can put him together with uncle Charles in the Black Sheep Index. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1957
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Sorry Jeff, but I think I might have crossed my lines a bit here.
The original case I found involving murder and one 'George Townley, superintendent of police' is not the same case as that of George Victor Townley we discuss here, for that dear old chap was 83 when brought up on the charge, and no vicar's daughter would have looked at him twice.
Problem is that I can't find that particular case again!
Yes there was a hell of a to-do concerning the Townley we discuss, over 12,000 good folk screamed out 'Townley! Townley!' while watching the execution of Richard Thomas Parker on August 10th 1864, and at Mullers execution in November 1864 the crowd grumbled and moaned about 'why was the scaffold not brought out for Townley?'
When Samuel Wright was topped in the same year the crowd roared out: 'Where's Townley?!' |
Paul Boggs
Police Constable
Username: Pboggs
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hello AP: I have a question or two directed to you about parts of your „Jack the Myth,“ the online version of which I have read two times now.
You present some quite intriguing information in you text, and I congratulate you on your efforts. For me, the most salient points are
1. the potential significance of 35 Dorset street, and
2. Thos. Cutbush as a possible Ripper suspect.
Perhaps I have overlooked something in your text, but I have difficulties relating the two points to one another. My basic question is: what connection do you see between points 1 and 2; i.e. how are they related; i.e. what does Cutbush have to do with Dorset Street and vice versa?
Thanks in advance for your response!
P.B.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1961
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
PB
Linkage between Thomas Hayne Cutbush and 35 Dorset Street is certainly not easily established. Despite years of trying to provide such a connection I’m almost persuaded to admit failure… almost.
When it became apparent a few years ago that THC’s uncle - Executive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush of Scotland Yard - was directly in charge of policing all the common lodging houses in the Whitechapel area, some tenuous linkage was available, as Dorset Street would have certainly fallen under his remit; and if my understanding of Dorset Street is correct, then most of the common lodging houses in this street were owned by just one or two individuals - including number 35 - thereby it would be entirely logical to assume that there would have been some form of contact between these individuals and Executive Superintendent Cutbush, it being his specific job to police such rowdy establishments.
As you may know, Executive Superintendent Cutbush was also directly in charge of the investigation into the crimes of the Whitechapel Murderer in early 1888, and there are witnesses attached to this early investigation which lead back to 35 Dorset Street. ‘Pearly Poll’ as a for instance.
As more and more material is uncovered, I’m quite positive that valuable links between the victims and Dorset Street will be provided, but whether a direct link to this address and THC will ever surface I have my doubts, but also my hopes.
Thank you for the kind comments about the ‘Myth’.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1967
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
I've been studying hundreds of cases in the LVP where Her Majesty's Pleasure has been used by the courts, and the results are of interest to the sentencing policy employed in THC's case.
As Robert pointed out, the person was first found 'not guilty' by the jury of the crime he or she was charged with on the grounds of insanity, and then sentenced by the judge to await Her Majesty's Pleasure.
Almost every HMP involved a murder or at least an attempted murder, I was only able to find three cases where HMP was employed for a much lesser offence.
There is the case of Richard Gypson, described as an 'aeronaut' and claimed nephew of Napoleon who stole three pewter tankards from a drinking house and was HMP'd for it. (May 25th 1853).
Then there is a James Kett who stole two mares while suffering 'delirium tremens' due to an excess of alcohol and was HMP'd. (I lost the date on this one).
Finally there is the Rev.John Hammond MA who was HMP'd in 1875 for stealing two pairs of gloves. He appeared to have a fetish for such things and also suffered 'delirium tremens' when he quaffed too much.
I found it of interest that sufferers of the DT's who committed crimes were considered insane at the time they had committed the crime and the only option left to the judge was to HMP them.
There are some interesting remarks made by a judge who finds himself in just such a situation in 1883, and he in fact questions the entire procedure of sentencing someone who has just been found not guilty by the jury, and that he doesn't understand the term 'criminal lunatic'.
(The Times. October 27 1883 'Midland Circuit').
I must go back and study the circumstances of THC's trial once again, but it does appear that if THC was declared insane by the jury then the judge had no other choice but to have him detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure, regardless of the nature of his crime.
Therefore we may have to reshape our thinking on the sentencing of THC, as it was neither harsh or unwarranted if this were indeed the case.
The disparity between THC's sentence of life in Broadmoor and Colicitt's fine of a £200 surety - for exactly the same offence as THC - would seem to explained by the fact that Colicitt was found guilty by the jury whilst Thomas was found not guilty by the jury?
As I said I must read the two court cases once again before closing this door. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1968
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Door is closed.
Cutbush was found not guilty due to insanity and Colicitt was found guilty of several insane acts but he wasn't declared unfit to plead.
The negotiations that took place after Colicitt's formal convinction were quite normal under the circumstances, as his family and friends were attempting to avoid a prison sentence.
Although much of the mystery may have been cleared up here, it still does not answer the key question of just why THC's family were so keen to have him declared insane, which they were.
And could it just be that uncle Charles witnessing what had happened to his nephew realised that he too could be confined to Broadmoor for the rest of his life for some minor offence given his obvious insanity?
Hence the pistol shot to the head in his kitchen? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2870
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
I thought the following quote from the Washington Post of 21st March 1910 to be useful:
'But the most important point of all made by Sir Robert is the fact that once the criminal investigation department was sure that it had in its hands the real perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders it procured from the secretary of state for the home department a warrant committing the man for detention "during the kings's pleasure" to the great asylum for the criminal insane at Broadmoor five or six years ago.
Consigned to An Asylum.
"Jack the Ripper" was consigned to Broadmoor by virtue of a warrant of the secretary of state for the home department, acting in the name of the sovereign, and not by means of any judicial process.
In Great Britain the guiding principle of the state in connection with the criminal insane is that its first and most important obligation is the protection of the citizens from harm, and that in all instances where through defective legislation or legal technicalities the courts are unable to furnish this protection, it should be supplied by the government.
In order to illustrate how this scheme works out in actual practice, let me explain what would have been the fate of Harry Thaw if the crime laid at his door had been perpetrated on yonder side of the ocean instead of in the United States.
Until the enactment of the trial of lunatics law in 1883 he would, on the ground of the evidence produced, have been, as here, held guiltless, on the ground of irresponsibility. But if tried subsequent to the passage of that act of parliament, he would have been adjudged "guilty but insane."
Few regain Freedom.
No matter whether there be a conviction of this character or an acquittal on the score of insanity, the presiding judge gives orders that the prisoner "be detained during his majesty's pleasure." This means the consignment of the prisoner to the great penal asylum at Broadmoor, one of the most remarkable institutions of the kind in the world, which is situated near Crowthorne, in the fairest portion of the county of Berks.
In 99 cases out of 100 the court of criminal appeal, should it be called upon to try the prisoner anew, will merely confirm the decree of "guilty but insane," and then the prisoner returns to Broadmoor, to share the fate of those acquitted on the score of insanity. He, like them, passes beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of law and into the power of the sovereign, acting in conjunction with his secretary of state for the home department. He remains at Broadmoor "during his majesty's pleasure" and can only be freed from thence by the warrant of the secretary of state.
The secretary of state is very chary about the grant of such warrants, and when in doubt usually follows the excellent rule of refraining from exercising the royal prerogative.' |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5318
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Hi AP
That makes it sound as if Anderson's suspect was originally in an ordinary asylum, or as an alternative actually at liberty, when suddenly proof emerges and he's confined to Broadmoor.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2871
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
That's what I thought as well, Robert.
But how do you do that?
Well, I guess you bang him up for something he didn't do and then write endless memos about what he didn't do, until everyone is confused about what he didn't do, until someone says well he must have done something that he didn't do otherwise he wouldn't have been banged up for something that he did... or did not do.
Groucho Marx solved this case a long time ago.
And then why didn't the 'Happy Family' make an appeal?
Well, we know the answer to that one.
I know there is a time difference here regarding this report, but I kinda like that. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2644
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Yes Robert-----so maybe Anderson"s suspect was just after all one big "befuddle" by Anderson!Maybe there was no "Low Class Polish Jew"- or if there was he was not the ripper----and Anderson was just engaged in what he was used to having to do daily in his secret service work on the Irish question?In other words it was all just par for the course ,just another example of what Ap refers to as "Disinformation"?
It is difficult to know from this distance in time how truthful Anderson was.Certainly he was accused of complicity in "faking" stories about the Irish Nationalist leader Parnell which appeared in the Times entitled "Parnellism and Crime" and he later admitted it in his memoirs.,though he said he had been ordered to do so by Monro.
However he held power during a peak moment of Irish/Anglo troubles and was apparently under orders from Monro and the government to arrange infiltration into the Fenian movement.
Maybe ,after years at the centre of espionage and counter espionage for the secret service he ended up with his right hand genuinely not knowing what his left hand was doing! |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2645
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Sorry,crossed posts here Robert and Ap,
I think that such a theory is very possible.It really is looking as though Cutbush was "fitted up" here and may possibly have spent time in an ordinary asylum prior to being charged with the jobbing and afterwards being moved to Broadmoor. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5319
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Hi Natalie and AP
I find the whole business bewildering. For instance, Sir M actually doesn't seem to have spoken to Supt Cutbush about the allegations (surely if he had, he wouldn't have made that "nephew" mistake?)
Which makes me wonder if Supt Cutbush was all that well in 1894....
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2872
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
Agreed Robert, bewildering it is.
There are so many errors in the Memo that one is reluctant to take any of it into serious consideration.
I do note that elsewhere on the WWW both you and my good self are taken to task for the specific crime of not evidencing a clear family link between uncle Charles and THC... we, and all our efforts, are dismissed for this, and we are not to be taken seriously.
What say you to this, Robert? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5320
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Hi AP
If I could stop taking myself seriously, I'd be a lot happier.
But I haven't seen the comments you refer to. Could you provide a link?
Robert |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
AP
Very informative and interesting post. I do believe that Jack was confined to Broadmore or some other institution however who he actually was is not mentioned.
It could be Cutbush, Kosminski, Kelly or anyone else we have not explored.
The fact that Anderson was so sure about the identy of Jack the Ripper, still leads me to wonder why his identity was not revealed if not for embarassment to the Police Force.
Not as much that they hid the identity due to the fact that he was right under their noses and they were unable to pin him down untill he had killed as many as he did.
Unless Jack was of the very highest upper crust, or connected to a police official,there was no reason in my opinion for them to hide his identity. Certainly not to save embarassment for his family, unless he was indeed someone who could cause embarassment directly to them, or if higher orders prevented them from doing so.
regards
Julie
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2875
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Thank you, Julie.
But more than informative I think.
This is the first time I have ever seen a reference which states quite clearly that the Whitechapel Murderer was detained under Her Majesty’s Pleasure.
And in Broadmoor.
If such a report had come out shortly after the series of reports in the Sun in 1894 I would not have given it the regard I have, but given the time period between the two reports I do attach much importance to it. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5325
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Hi AP
Just to take on the mantle of serpent in the garden for a moment, the report does say "the king's pleasure" (I wish it had been the dear old Queen who was pleased, but there you go).
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2876
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
I saw that too, Robert, you mantled serpent.
But my dear chap when 1900 slipped into 1901 and Edward succeeded dear old Victoria, then Her Majesty’s Pleasure became His Majesty’s Pleasure, and if His Majesty did not sign new papers of committal under His Majesty then Her Majesty’s inmates would have been released, and often were as a sign of the majesty of the new Majesty.
The chap who interests us saw a change of monarchs not long before he died in 1903.
Later researchers would find him detained under His Majesty’s Pleasure.
Otherwise he would have been released. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5326
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Hi AP
Actually, that's a question I asked a long time ago : did all the lunatics have to be "re-registered" because a king was on the throne. Thanks, AP.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2653
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Important point Robert!
So this was supposed to have taken place after Queen Victoria died in 1901?
Sir Robert seems to have been intent on using the press to announce various bombshells in 1910!
In April for example Anderson is busy "owning up" to having authored the Times Articles -slandering Parnell which caused an uproar in the press. Sir Melville Macnaghten an old friend of Monro"s from when they were in India together, rushed to alert him of the gravity of the impending crisis.
Anderson though got there first and managed to give a news conference which implicated- indeed blamed Monro -for the lies Anderson himself had written about Parnell.The result was an uproar in Parliament and the press.
Monro robustly denied all complicity in the sladers and Sir Melville,now head of the CID, also apparently managed to modify the fallout for Monro in parliament.
I must admit Ap that your research on Anderson"s bombshell above about "the Ripper and Broadmoor "in August 1910,which followed so soon
after his dramatic "revelations"of April
1910 got me thinking.
Did anderson have more on Monro than we know about?
I remember the story told by Christopher Monro,James Monro"s grandson ,in which he stated that Monro set down his views about the Whitechapel murders in " highly private memoranda" which passed on his death to his eldest son,Charles.Monro"s theory about Jack the Ripper,said Charles was a "very hot potato" and Monro kept it a close secret,even from his wife.Charles"s brother made no attempt either to learn the ripper"s identity, instead he urged him :"Burn the stuff,Charlie,burn it and try to forget it!"[Howell"s and Skinner-The Ripper Legacy].
It looks like Monro may have known something-and Anderson may have known he did and tried to "out" his fellow police officers secret knowledge!Ooh err! |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2654
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
pS I knew I got the dates of Sir Robert Anderson"s press revelations the wrong way round!
March 1910 he annonced the Ripper had been incarcerated in Broadmoor. In April 1910 he goes into print again and lets the s**t hit the fan over Monro and himself telling porkies![Winston Churchill was not amused!] |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
'Five or six years ago.'
In 1910.
In Broadmoor.
1903 Thomas dies in Broadmoor.
HMP'd.
Press report from then, not now.
Quite exciting really. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2884
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 5:04 am: |
|
Then again I recently came across this quote concerning Sir Robert Anderson from the same time period:
'Sir Robert Anderson has assured the writer that the assassin (meaning the Whitechapel Murderer) was well known to the police, but unfortunately, in the absence of sufficient legal evidence to justify an arrest, they were unable to take him.'
Sounds like he didn't know his asp from his elbow. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2889
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Taken from 'The Bible or Church' from Sir Robert Anderson:
'While at Scotland Yard I watched the excavations for the building which has been erected on the then vacant ground across the way. The removal of a deep layer of river mud, permeated by the foul refuse of centuries, disclosed a rich bed of sand which had been thrown up by the sea in an earlier age. That sand was pure and wholesome in comparison with the filth which had been heaped upon it. But it was cleared away, and the foundations of the new building were laid on the rock which lay beneath. This parable needs no interpreting. The Reformers knew well what they were about when they refused to build even upon "the Primitive Church of undivided Christendom," and insisted on going back to Apostolic times, and laying their foundations deep and firm on the bedrock of Holy Scripture.'
Perhaps he should have thrown a dismembered whore in there? |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2658
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Are you being serious here Ap?I mean where can this stuff be found? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2891
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 3:31 am: |
|
I’m joking, Natalie, but Sir Peter ain’t!
All his writings are widely available on the net now so just do a simple search and they will pop up.
Finding them is not the problem, it is the reading of them that hurts.
My impression is that not a lot of the folk of his own age were much taken with Sir Robert. Here’s a quote from ‘Capital Punishment’ New York, 1925:
‘His whole conception of crimes, its causes and its treatment, is vitiated by a peculiar jumble of narrow theology and social prejudice, and an absolute lack of any intelligent understanding…’
Just the sort of chap you would want to head the most important murder enquiry of the century then. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2974
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Having taken some time to study the absolute legal requirements to enable a court of law in the LVP to use Her Majesty’s Pleasure, I have reached the conclusion that in no way, manner or form did Thomas Cutbush satisfy those legal requirements in a court of law for him to have received such a sentence.
In particular I would draw attention to the lucid statement he made to the senior police officers involved prior to his entry into that court where he made it quite plain that there had been a case of mistaken identity, showing that he was well aware of the charges against him, and had a very plausible alibi.
The jury had to legally furnish three conditions on the prisoner.
1) Whether he be mute of malice.
2) Whether he can plead.
3) Whether the prisoner be of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of proceeding of the trial to make a proper defence.
It was also required for a two recognised medical practitioners to show that:
1) The prisoner was an imbecile and not fit to plead.
2) The prisoner was not able to understand the nature and quality of the act charged.
As can be seen from Thomas’ known statements to the police and court, he was intimately and perfectly aware of the charges and situation he faced, he offered a perfectly valid defence to those charges: that another young man had committed the offences and not him, therefore he was - by the law - mute of malice.
Thomas was a clerk, not an imbecile.
He was not allowed to plead.
Thomas should not have gone to Broadmoor for this.
Maybe something else, but not this. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2724
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Having taken some time out now to read up on Sir Robert Anderson,to which you refer us above,I am not at all surprised at what you have pointed out.Certainly he became a great thorn in the flesh of the various MP"s later on, as well as the Prime Minister.
But in office he seems to have been completely pragmatic. For him the ends seem to have justified the means and the same can be said of the Chief Commissioner, James Monro.
Supt. Charles Cutbush, the Uncle or natural father[?]of Thomas Cutbush, I have been able to learn learnt less about only that he was convinced there were plots emanating from the Papists to poison his water supply and that he eventually committed suicide.
But then I have been deeply puzzled by the reference to Supt Cutbush"s" thighs" in the Met police book of pensions-apparently he cut a fine figure of a man in his day and I must say I felt slightly " uncomfortable" reading about such a distinguished Victorian gentleman having to bare his naked thighs for examination.These wounds were not incurred,it would seem, in the line of his duty as a policeman since there is a blank in that space...so where did he get them and from whom?
But his nephew Thomas seems to have had a very strange deck of cards dealt out to him.
It certainly appears to be the case that he received no fair trial ultimately being grabbed by the men in white coats and put in the" hurry up cart' to Broadmoor like that-not even being allowed to plead because of " alleged insanity"-especially since you now say his recorde answers were quite lucid and rational[-where can you read up on these answers of his?].
But maybe he was insane and very dangerous Ap.Maybe too this "insanity" was not continuous and he had often appeared normal - "in remission"- so to speak.
But since 1888 or earlier he had probably driven his maiden aunt and his mother round the bend with his abnormal nighttime practices,his outbursts of documented violence towards them and their maid, his doctor and the elderly fellow employee at the Tea Company who he threw down stairs and callously left for dead.
He may even have helped drive his uncle Charles Cutbush towards an early grave since we can read at Kew that Charles"s thighs were "covered in knife wounds".
Most importantly he was accused by the Sun newspaper of being The Ripper------which is amazing since no other suspect was given that dubious "honour".
The finer points of law you are attending to above deserve to be researched as far as possible.
You say there are two ripper experts- sitting on information that may help?Could you perhaps write to them and request sight of any papers they may have on Cutbush?
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5402
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 4:01 am: |
|
Hi Natalie
The press section, the Times, 1891 has reports dealing with Colocitt/Cutbush.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2977
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Natalie
I should make it quite clear here, that I am not attempting to cast doubts on the question of Thomas Cutbush’s insanity, for I honestly believe that he suffered from severe mental health problems which might have justified his classification as a ‘lunatic’, but certainly not an ‘imbecile’.
As you quite rightly point out, his daring escape from the Lambeth Infirmary, plus his savage attacks on the old man at work, a servant girl at home, and his mother and aunt, do show him to be a very dangerous individual indeed. But again certainly not an imbecile.
In particular his escape from the infirmary demonstrates how keen and intelligent his sense of his circumstances and surroundings were for he uses highly intelligent violent action to rapidly change those circumstances and surroundings.
This action when taken into consideration with his well-thought out defence to the police accusations that he stabbed women, leave the distinct impression that we are dealing with a young man who is perfectly aware of the charges against him, and the consequences of those charges should he be found guilty.
So, yes, Thomas should quite rightly be classified as a ‘lunatic’ I agree, but that is still not satisfying the strict legal criteria I have already outlined that was absolutely necessary for an individual to be detained to await Her Majesty’s Pleasure.
In fact Thomas fulfils none of the required criteria… so something quite peculiar and untoward was going on here. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2725
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
It stinks to high heaven this case AP-----lets hope we can discover what was going on and why.
Thomas Cutbush made an ingenious escape from his detention apparently with all his very sharp and astute wits about him but he seems to have been a ruthless,violent, callous and paranoid individual non the less!
Natalie |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
