|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4503
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 4:24 am: | 
|
Chris, thanks for that sharp-eyed transcription.
I suppose THC's skin condition might make the blotchy-faced man a quite attractive bet. But he seems wrong to me, because
1. That would mean that the killer allowed Kelly to stay alive for quite some time before despatching her - something I find very difficult to believe.
2. It means disregarding GH's story in its entirety.
3. The article says that the only "witness" was the blind boy - completely disregarding Cox.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Hi
My gut feeling is that the Sun account is merging together of two threads:
1) The blind boy allegedly in Mckenzie's company who heard the killer speak to her and
2) Tales of a boy living with Kelly, some accounts of which say he saw the killer before he was sent away to be looked after by a neighbour.
I think it likely that somehow these two became confused and emerged as the account we see in the article above.
All the best
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2077
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Robert
The article doesn't say that the blind boy was the only witness - it says he would be the only witness whose identification would be "almost conclusive." On what basis this judgement was made I do not know. Perhaps it was that
1) the boy, being blind, paid more attention to the human voice than would a sighted person and so retained a clear memory of the killer's tones or
2) there was something particularly distinctive about the killer's voice which the boy would remember vividly
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on June 05, 2005) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2078
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Concerning Kelly and a boy, here is part of the section from "Will the Real Mary Kelly" where I looked at this aspect:
2) Mary Jane Kelly had a son.
The story that Kelly had a young son living with her is both very early in origin and also becomes incredibly detailed very quickly. The outline of the story is that Kelly had a young son, whose age seems to vary from seven to eleven years old, living with her. On the night of the murder a man came to her room and she sent the child to stay with a neighbour. For once we have a quoted source for the earliest occurrence of this story. On the 9th of November, the day of the murder, an account appeared in The Star which specifically says that the details were told to the Star reporter by the inhabitants of the lodging houses in Dorset Street. This includes the first mention of Kelly's child:
"But from the startled inhabitants of the lodging-houses in Dorset-street a Star man got a few details. The victim is a woman who went by the name of Mary Jane and she lived in the room in which she has been murdered, with a man and her little son - about 10 or 11 years old."
The fuller version of the story of the boy appeared in the Times of the following day, 10th November:
"Another account gives the following details: Kelly had a little boy, aged about 6 or 7 years living with her, and latterly she had been in narrow straits, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving. There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbour's house. Nothing more was seen of the woman until yesterday morning, when it is stated that the little boy was sent back into the house, and the report goes, he was sent out subsequently on an errand by the man who was in the house with his mother. There is no direct confirmation of this statement."
The oddest mention of Kelly having a child comes from the Star of the 10th of November. After leaving Kelly, Barnett went to live at Buller's Lodging House, 25 New Street. The Star reporter tracked Barnett down to a public house near his lodgings and interviewed him. This interview appears to quote Barnett as confirming that Kelly had a child:
"JOE BARNETT'S STATEMENT.
In a public-house close by Buller's the reporter succeeded later on in finding Barnett, who is an Irishman by parentage and a Londoner by birth. He had lived with her for a year and a half, he said, and should not have left her except for her violent habits. She was a Limerick woman by birth, he says, but had lived in Dublin for some time. She went by the name of Mary Jane, but her real name was Marie Jeanette. He knew nothing about her proceedings since he left her, except that his brother met her on the Thursday evening and spoke to her. He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window.
To our reporter Barnett said he and the deceased were very happy and comfortable together until another woman came to sleep in their room, to which he strongly objected. Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights he quarrelled with the woman whom he called his wife and left her. The next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money. He called several other days and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her between half-past seven and eight, and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position of life as herself. Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her."
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4506
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Very interesting, Chris. I suppose in those days there must have been children who were almost communal - if their mothers were ill at a particilar time, or having a client stop the night, or if the children were simply orphans, one can imagine that women like Kelly may have allowed them shelter during the night, on a temporary basis.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Robert, Chris
see my post on Mary Ann Wood? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4508
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Yes, AP, some similarities there. I do wish papers would show the conclusions of the cases they report.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Ah, but that would ruin the fun, Robert.
Sometimes it is nice for us to tell the newspapers what they have written.
Heavens above! That brandy bottle just tried to knock me down the stairs. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2079
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 3:36 am: |
|
5th part - this is the last part of the main article.
17 February 1894
THE STORY OF "JACK THE RIPPER."
SOLUTION OF THE GREAT MURDER MYSTERY.
ANTECEDENTS, HABITS AND CRIMES.
ANTECEDENTS OF JACK THE RIPPER.
The next point to be considered about the criminal lunatic in Broadmoor, whom we identify as Jack the Ripper, is whether we can add to the accumulation of evidence against him any facts in his personal characteristics, his hereditary traits, and temperament which will point him as one likely to commit the Whitechapel crimes.
This man was born in 1865 in London. His father separated from his mother, whom he was said to have treated badly. In the case of the father, the morbid element appears in the treatment of his wife, his neglect of his child, and, finally, in his flying from his responsibilities and in his contracting a bigamous marriage abroad.
This man was employed in several offices, in none of them for a long time; and in every case his dismissal came from such irregularity as one would expect in the case of such a man. One of the most common of these irregularities was his constant irregularity of hours. He had begun at an early age that system of night waking and stopping in bed late in the daytimes, which finally developed into his turning night into day, and working under the protection of darkness his fiendish crimes. At the time when he committed the Whitechapel murders this tendency had so far developed that he spent most of every day in bed, and it was not till nine or ten o'clock at night that he ever went forth. It will be seen how much such habits helped him in evading detection. They kept him from being seen by all but a few; outside the relatives and chance lodgers who resided there, the house in which he lived concealed his identity, his very existence. In short, he was, except for a few people, hidden from all the world. The man who stalked Whitechapel was a thing of shadow and night - a thing hidden away from the common gaze, just like the family of a lunatic or imbecile who only signifies his existence to the casual visitor by the stifled cry or the muffled groan.
HIS TEMPERAMENT.
The testimony we are about to quote is fully clear as to the man's having what we may call the Jack the Ripper temperament.
Already we have given many instances of that morbidness of mind, and especially in the direction of constitutional disease, which everybody who has studied this class of crime known to be a most significant impelling motive towards the murder of fallen women. So strong was this urging upon him, that, as we have already pointed out, he contemplated for a long time the assassination of a doctor who refused to take his hypochondria for real disease.
All the witnesses singularly agree in this description of the morbid and filthy tendencies of this man's mind. Some of the statements made to me we shall have to omit as they are too loathsome for republication; but anybody reading between the lines will see the type of diseased and vile creature this man was. Anatomy held for him an irresistible fascination. We have already mentioned that in his room were found drawings and diagrams, just such as one would expect to find in Jack the Ripper's habitation - diagrams of women mutilated, but mutilated in just the way in which the murdered women of Whitechapel were found mutilated.
In bed most of the day, out most of the night, engaged almost exclusively in the study of anatomy and the drawing of mutilated women - is not that exactly the picture one would form of the type of lunatic who would commit the Whitechapel murders? When it is added that, altogether outside the Whitechapel horrors, the creature who so lives has committed other homicidal offences, the case becomes irresistible.
THE TESTIMONY OF ACQUAINTANCES.
We now proceed to give the testimony of persons who knew the man we call Jack the Ripper. It will be seen that they correspond with our summary of these contents:-
First, there is the statement of S K. S K is a literary man; has written some works, and formerly knew A B; well, this is what he says of him:-
He was a curious fellow, and led and eccentric life. He was a clerk, but generally lost his employment by being continually late at the office, owing to his lying in bed till late. This came about through his being out very late at night. He used to come in through the windows and on one occasion I remember he broke the parlour window so as to undo the latch. He used to study books of anatomy, and was dirty in his habits and in his mind. He associated largely with fallen women. His appearance suggested filthy habits. I know that the police had their suspicions of his being Jack the Ripper.
I shall return to the sentence in this statement which I have italicised presently. For the moment, let me go on to give another statement which will help us to form a picture of this man. It is by H L:-
STATEMENT OF H L.
I knew A B. He was an idle, dissolute young fellow as long as I have known him. The way that he came to be arrested as a lunatic by the authorities was in this way. He seized a relative by the throat and tried to cut her throat with a large knife. She struggled and escaped and being now seriously afraid of him, gave information, but, like a woman, she became sorry afterwards. The police thought that he was Jack the Ripper. Whether it was true of not I cannot say, but undoubtedly the scene of the murders is only about 15 minutes from here he lived. He had a terrible face. For instance, when I married I took my wife to show her my old lodgings. When we left my wife said to me, "Did you ever see such a man? He has the head of a murderer!" He was found on medical authority to be a lunatic, and unfit to plead to the indictment, and there the matter began and ended.
He seemed very dazed, and as though he were under a great cloud. His conversation was very incoherent as a rule, but at times he spoke naturally. He appeared very frightened when the young women were taken to the asylum to identify him (which two of them did).
THE HOUSE OF JACK THE RIPPER.
And now we return to a passage in the first statement - "He used to come in through the window," says S K, "and on one occasion I remember he broke the parlour window so as to undo the latch." Now let us see what kind of a house was that in which this man lived. It will be seen, we think, it was just the kind of house which would facilitate the doings of such a creature as Jack the Ripper. Here is a description of it by one who has thoroughly investigated it.
The house is separated by a wall from a mews, kept open during the night for the convenience of carmen. The entrance to the mews is from a street running behind the houses. It was by the entrance to the mews that A B approached the house. When he came home early in the morning he climbed the garden wall and entered the house by the back window, and by the same means he left it when an endeavour was made to secure him as a lunatic. His curious conduct was well known to the neighbours who always regarded him as a little weak in the head. A B's room in the house was on the top floor. It was somewhat of the garret pattern, poorly furnished, and used by him as a writing room. When at home during the day he wrote a great deal, destroying, however, most of what he wrote immediately it was finished.
At the bottom of the garden attached to the house there was a small outhouse, which the police, when searching the house, neglected to overhaul. In this much might have been found. Shortly after the arrest the outhouse was pulled down.
THE MILE END JOB.
I pass to another branch of the case. It will be remembered that the charge on which the man was brought up was that of stabbing girls. When he was arrested he had a most significant observation. "Is this," he said, " for the Mile End job? I mean the public house next to the Syndicate where I just missed her that time. They took me to be of the Jewish persuasion."
Now this is an extraordinary observation in connection with the facts we are about to relate.
Inquiries were made for any trace of the "Mile End job in the public house next to the Syndicate," to which the lunatic referred on his arrest. It was discovered that next to the Jewish Synagogue in the East end there is a public house and that during the Jack the Ripper period of 1888 some disturbance was one night caused at the bar of the public house by a fallen women screaming that Jack the Ripper was talking to her. She had been drinking and conversing with a young man of slight build and of sallow features, and she pointed to him when she made the startling announcement that he was Jack the Ripper. The man immediately took to his heels, departing with an alacrity that prevented all pursuit. The incident was but briefly reported in the daily papers under the heading of "Another Jack the Ripper Scare."
But a description of the man whom the woman pointed out was given as that of a young man of 27 or 28 years, slight of build and of Jewish appearance, his face being thin and sallow. This led to the theory entertained for some time that Jack the Ripper was a Jew.
The public house incident took place about the middle of September. On the night of September 30, 1888,
TWO WOMEN WERE KILLED,
one in Berner streets and one in Mitre square. Over the latter there was written on the rough wall in chalk, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing." The writing was ordered to be obliterated by Sir Charles Warren. In connection with the Mitre square murder, the City Police offered, on October 2, 1888, a reward of £500 for the capture of the murderer, and the description given of the person wanted was:- "Age about 28; slight; height 5ft 8in; complexion dark; no whiskers; black diagonal coat, collar and tie; carried newspaper parcel. Respectable appearance."
Now we say that these facts enormously add to the proof that the man who made this observation was the same man who had murdered the two women on the night of September 30, 1888. The mistake of saying "syndicate" for synagogue rather adds to the strength of the story.
ANOTHER LINK.
But that is not all. It will be remembered that this man was charged with stabbing either four or six young women. These young women stated that while passing along the streets they had been stabbed by a man who, in each case, had made off at great speed. The women described that they had been struck by some sharp instrument, their clothes being punctured and smothered in blood, and all of them suffering more or less from haemorrhage.
What was this instrument like? We must go back to the time of this man's escape from the lunatic asylum. On the evening after he had had that remarkable interview with the man and his sweetheart in Camden Town the escaped lunatic returned to his house. It was twelve o'clock. His feet were bleeding, a fact on which, it will be remembered, the father of one of the girls stabbed commented. He had a bath, he changed his clothes, and it was understood that he was going to bed.
After everybody else had gone upstairs, they heard a heavy tread outside in the street. They thought the lunatic would be frightened, went downstairs,
AND FOUND HIM GONE.
He came back again at one o'clock to dinner, and stayed until seven o'clock in the evening. He went to sleep, and one of his relatives then took a knife from his pocket and hid it behind a piano. He then went out and wandered about the streets all Sunday evening. During the evening a police constable called at the house. He had heard that the man had returned home again and had gone to arrest him.
The police officer obtained the knife which had been taken from the man and hidden behind the piano.
THE KNIFE.
And now let us see what kind of weapon this was. The knife is one of the bowie pattern, the sharp blade tapering to a point, being nearly 6in in length, and also having a kind of sword hilt. The black handle is knotted, seven points on either being tipped with pearl. The knife bears the name of a firm in the Minories.
THE SHEATH.
The lunatic himself, in spite of his insanity, felt the importance of the knife. To a police officer he made the significant observation, "I am all right - they can't do anything with me. The sheath only was found on me." And this observation was true; for in the hip pocket of his trousers had been found a leather sheath into which the knife fitted. Moreover he exhibited great concern that the knife had been given up to the police.
THE TERRIBLE LIST.
And now let us set forth the terrible list of the crimes which were committed by the wretched man called Jack the Ripper by himself:-
August 7, 1888 - Martha Tabran, found in George yard Buildings, Commercial street, Spitalfields, with 39 wounds on the body - supposed to have been murdered with a bayonet.
September 1 - Mary Ann Nichols found in Buck's yard, Whitechapel road. Throat was cut from ear to ear. Body ripped up abdomen almost to the breast bone; stabbed and gashed on thigh.
September 8 - Annie Chapman found at 29 Hanbury street, Spitalfields.
September 30 - Elizabeth Stride found in Berner street, Whitechapel, nearly opposite the International and Educational Club. Head nearly severed from the body.
September 30 - Catherine Eddowes or Conway, found in Mitre square, Aldgate - woman's throat cut from the left side; abdomen ripped open. Above the body was written in chalk on the wall, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."
November 9 - Mary Jane Kelly murdered in a house in Dorset street, Spitalfields. Body terribly mutilated and gashed.
July 17, 1889 - Alice McKenzie murdered, her throat being cut and body mutilated in Castle alley, Whitechapel.
September 11, 1889 - Woman, unidentified, murdered, her throat being cut and body mutilated in railway arch, Pinchin street, off Backchurch lane.
February 13, 1891 - Frances Coles murdered, her throat cut and body mutilated, in alleyway of the Great Eastern Railway which leads from Swallow Gardens, Whitechapel.
These crimes have horrified the whole world. The perpetrator has remained unknown. To this paper was accorded the duty of discovering him. The story, brought to us months ago, has been subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. Not days, or weeks, but months have been devoted to its investigation. Clues, elusive and slight, have been followed up; witness after witness has been examined. Every line of evidence has been sifted, weighed, collated. Much of the information in our possession we have not mentioned in the desire to make plain within the narrowest and most stringent limits which the telling of an intelligible narrative would permit we have kept our account. In the interests of the peace and security of the community and the tranquility of the public mind we ask that this story may be subjected by the authorities and the public to the most rigid investigation.
A JOURNALIST'S VERDICT.
The London correspondent of the Liverpool Daily Post writes in that paper today:
I happen to know a good many details connected with the identification of Jack the Ripper with a homicidal maniac now incarcerated in an asylum. These, for reason sufficiently patent to journalists, The Sun has abstained from publishing but I am able to express a strong conviction that chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and irresistible. The Sun has got up the race with a skill and patience that might be well imitated by the Criminal Investigation Department and indeed the fact that the police inquiry signally failed is a disquieting commentary on the investigation of serious crime. The impossibility of giving names and stating facts which might implicate or incriminate others has seriously handicapped the newspaper revelations, but your readers may take it that there are behind the broad outlines proofs which supply all the links in the chain and rivet them emphatically. The lunatic, it must be understood, does not belong in the lowest class of society, his relatives being fairly well to do people of the comfortable lower middle class. Without dwelling too strongly on the present demeanour of the man, all that is known of his past habits and tendencies points to his being chronically possessed of that
INSENSATE MANIA
which satisfies itself only with the slaughter of fellow beings. There is, indeed, apart from the Whitechapel murders, a record of eleven homicidal crimes, committed, attempted, or planned, and it is for some of these, perpetrated in a manner singularly suggestive of the Whitechapel methods that he is now in confinement. Then as to Whitechapel. The murders began with his residence there, lasted while he remained, ceased when he left, and were resumed when he returned. There is, moreover, evidence identifying him with them still more closely. Some of this cannot be published, but amongst it is the discovery in his rooms of abominable drawings, showing such mutilations as were committed on the unfortunate victims. His way of life, the state of his clothing, to say nothing of testimony as to direct identification, are all strongly confirmatory, no less than the fact that he has on occasions practised successfully the low but simple cunning which enables a man to defy detection by mixing among those who are seeking for him. All this, and more, put together, makes the demonstration irresistible. But as he is already imprisoned as a hopeless lunatic, and nothing more could be done if the crimes were brought home to him, the case will probably never be judicially investigated, although it affords tempting scope for the pen of some future De Quincey or Poe.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4510
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
Thanks so much for this, Chris and Natalie. An awful lot to digest here!
Robert |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3256
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 10:19 am: |
|
Just wanted to thank Natalie and Chris for making these press reports available - I've copied them over to the main Press Reports section this morning and they can be found at:
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/sun/
Great work everyone!
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Hi Howard.
I take your point about Sgt.White's description.
However, in the case of Tumblety at least, it's very unlikely. White described the voice as that of a man of culture, in other words, an educated gentleman. That's unlikely to have been Tumblety, who's American accent would hardly have gone unnoticed.
The major authors who have commented on White's description, have described it as a portrait of Druitt. But of course, I've no idea how Stephenson and Thompson spoke, so I can't argue with you there.
Warmest regards Howard.
LUKE WHITLEY |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Thanks Natalie & Chris for the latest instalment.
Riveting stuff indeed!
I’m going back to the previous reports posted here.
Reading through them again I noticed that several allusions are made to the ‘police’ apparently cooperating with the ‘Sun’ investigation into Thomas Cutbush.
Various documents are mentioned that were once obviously under the direct control of the police as evidence in the case against Thomas; and one does wonder how the ‘Sun’ managed to get their hands on such sensitive material, unless they had a willing contact within the force of a senior enough position to allow evidence to be passed to the ‘Sun’ officially. This being the case, I would suggest that the senior police official involved would have been from the City of London force rather than the Metropolitan.
In this regard, I must admit my ignorance as to the territorial boundaries of the two London forces; and would like to know whether the Cutbush family home in Albert Street came under the control of the City or Metropolitan force?
Regardless of that, I feel we might well be looking at a situation where the City force had obtained certain details concerning Thomas Cutbush, and his uncle - Executive Chief Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush of Scotland Yard - and then passed that information onto the ‘Sun’ in an attempt to force the Metropolitan force to give up their own.
Failing that, we could be genuinely looking at a situation which has some senior officer at Scotland Yard openly cooperating with the ‘Sun’ in a course of action that would ultimately discredit his own force.
For the representatives of the ‘Sun’ to gain access to a prisoner at Broadmoor they would have needed ‘official’ permission - and the Broadmoor report does indeed state that very salient fact.
Now by my reckoning only the Home Office, or a very senior police official indeed could have issued such an official permit.
This is getting weird. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4512
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Hi AP
I'd stake my teabags on Albert St being under the Met - http://www.gendocs.demon.co.uk/police.html
Another weird thing is, Cutbush isn't named in the article, and so far as I know, Sir Melville was the only person to name him! You would have thought that other newspapers would have followed up the Sun's story, and put a name to the suspect - at that small remove in time, it should have been easy.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2018
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Hi Everyone,While I appreciate your thanks to me as well as Chris,I must say that Chris was the one who did 85% of the work involved and that particular task was a hard one and a mammoth one.But then I know that Chris,like many of us,enjoys the collective and shared nature of this site and that the pleasure is in that as much as anything else.
A big thanks too to AP,Debra and Robert for all the research into the Cutbushes that has gone on for a long time now and as always to Stephen for making all this possible in the first place!
Natalie
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Thanks Robert
Perhaps the weirdest thing of all is how did I find Thomas Cutbush's name in a 'Sun' report of 1894 when I looked in 1991 but can't find it now?
That's how I found him. Looking for knife related attacks on women.
Mind you I do remember sitting for days on end in Colindales studying every copy of the 'Sun' for that month on MF. But I was looking at an awful lot of stuff in those primitive days.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2019
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
AP,
It strikes me that the police at this time had numbers of detectives,informers,agents provocateurs etc because they were concurrently dealing with the massive social and political unrest in the East End-the successful Industrial action of waves of strikers,threatened and actual action by the Jewish sweatshop workers,and hanging over all this successive violent eruptions from Dynamite throwing Fenians.
So they employed upwards of an extra 600 police to try to deal with the situation.
And on top of all this out jumps Jack the Ripper!
It seems more than likely that there were "informers" passing information both ways
on all the activities.
Cutbush probably had enemies/rivals within the Authorities -the Home Secretary himself ,Henry Matthews for example-a devout catholic-one of the very "papists"that the deeply paranoid Charles
Cutbush thought were poisoning his drinking water[as reported in the press when he died].
Natalie |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2080
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hi guys
Thanks for the feedback and Im glad thse Sun reports are now in the Press Reports so we have a permanent record of them.
There are two more to go - the interview with Labouchere and a Sun editorial, both from Feb 19th. I will be posting these this week
Chris |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2020
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Josh,
....to continue from the Cutbush in 1881 census thread.....
I know virtually nothing about the serial killer,his MO,his signature etc compared to many on this site who do.
But I do know a little about the various illnesses that attack the mind.
It seems to me that Thomas Cutbush was a man who would be described as a person who, without the benefit of modern drug therapy,suffered from episodes of madness or psychosis.
The pattern of the psychosis varies from individual to individual but with the paranoid schizophrenic type of illness a psychotic attack
can develop because of a perceived slight,injustice or a hostile expression.In other words an attack of such madness can happen unexpectedly and develop into a murderous assault
as seen in the example of the seaman C.A.P. on the 1881 census thread.
And yes,the patient need not go on with an ever increasing violence,not at all---but today and in those days,because it can all come on so suddenly patients experiencing feelings of extreme violence towards a person they think is trying to harm them still do have to be "restrained"-put into a straight jacket until the injection starts to work or the psychosis passes off.
Thomas was no exception.
The attack on the fellow employee he hurled down the stairs and left for dead without a whiff of concern is typical.And he knew how to get away with it----high intelligence,planning ,the keenest insight of all known human conditions
is often possessed by a person with this condition.
In the 60"s RD Laing and other pioneering doctors and psychiatrists actually experimented with LSD to try to enter the mind set of the paranoid schizophrenic because amongst those with a schizoid personality [not developing into schizophrenia-possibly because they found outlets for their visions]- Bowlby mentions people like Einstein,Njinsky,Napoleon,Isaac Newton etc oh and Hitler too who did seem to lose his marbles with a horrendous outcome for humanity.
But back to Thomas Cutbush.
Thomas could easily have had a dangerous attack of paranoia about prostitutes giving him the VD he thought he had.This could well have triggered the murders.And actually there could very much have been a strange sexually perverse thrill in their murder and mutilation.
And this could have passed off too.
Thomas could have returned to attacking women differently in 1894 ---or when it was he attacked six girls by stabbing them in their bottoms---simply because whatever triggered this latest series of attacks was quite different from whatever triggered the earlier attacks.For example
women wore "bustles" at the time making their tiny waists show off their bottoms quite provocatively.Thomas may well have disapproved of such a semi- sexual display-this puritanical streak is also very common among those with such an illness-often accompanied by a "prurience" that would link up with the "medical/slightly pornographic" drawings that were found among his other and highly significant "mutilation" drawings.
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Natalie
Thanks for all your thoughts here.
I tend to think that Thomas may have reacted quite differently to the outside world and his difficult circumstances after his short spell in the Infirmary.
The world sort of became solid then, and his habitual routines had changed… like night became day, if you see what I mean.
There is now no doubt in my mind that young Thomas spent sometime confined in an institution between the end of 1888 and the start of 1891; this going on testimony from his aunt, and the reports you and Chris have been posting here.
His sudden appearance back on the streets in March of 1891 must relate to some sort of confinement and treatment in an institution.
Checking back and forth with the detail of the case, the encounter in Camden Town mentioned in the ’Sun’ reports by the witness they quote at length must have been on the 5th March 1891.
Chris, my thanks again.
The section that is not readable regarding the evidence found in Cutbush’s garret couldn’t be posted anyway, could it?
Fairly crucial that. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2021
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Thanks AP.It would certainly be very important to be sure of that.And your point about night becoming day.
But the gap [end of 88-91]doesnt have to be filled with Thomas being in the bin.Although I understand it is a progressive illness in the sense that the madness usually does get worse and for longer periods of time [untreated by modern day drugs]it doesnt appear to happen in a linear way and as you rightly point out can be hugely helped[even without modern day drugs it seems]by a calm peaceful routine where such episodes dont get triggered but where some mode of adjustment can be found.
Thomas Cutbush could have been Jack the Ripper
and ceased of his own accord because that episode was over.
Especially if he was sent somewhere where he had some peace away from the fuss and hysterics of his Mother and Aunt and possibly peace away from fairly
regular interference by Uncle Charles,determined, as a highly successful-grade A, Chief of Police, that any male relative of his should follow in his high achiever path!
But yes I do agree,if he was incarcerated that would help to make more sense of it. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2081
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 6:45 pm: |
|
The Labouchere interview:
19 February 1894
EXTRA SPECIAL
JACK THE RIPPER
A TALK WITH MR. LABOUCHERE
WHAT HE THINKS OF THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE.
A Sun representative called on Saturday on Mr. Labouchere to elicit his views as to what steps ought to be taken in order to bring the House of Lords to a political end, but the member for Northampton declined to be drawn on the subject.
"I don't like the system of interviews," he said; "they are very well for newspapers that want 'copy,' but they are nuisances, not only to the interviewed, but also to the public, except in very rare cases. The thing has been overdone."
In vain The Sun representative endeavoured to convince Mr. Labouchere that he might be one of the exceptional cases. He was civil but uncommunicative; but The Sun representative was determined not to be beaten, so he asked him in n incidental fashion whether he had read The Sun revelations respecting the identity of Jack the Ripper? Yes, Mr. Labouchere had. "And what do you think of them?" softly asked The Sun representative.
The subject seemed to interest the member for Northampton. "I once had a lot of papers," he said, "proving conclusively that Jack was a Spanish sailor. The murders were all committed when the vessel in which the sailor navigated was in the London docks. He died in Aden and the murders ceased. He might have been this sailor, and equally he might not."
"Might we ask," said The Sun representative, "if you have given up this sailor and believe in
THE LUNATIC AT BROADMOOR?"
"I neither believe nor disbelieve in either," said Mr. labouchere, slowly puffing his eternal cigarette. "Hundreds of men might have been Jack, only one man was. What has The Sun shown? That a man of nasty habits and of homicidal tendencies lived in London whilst these murders were being committed. This man was employed in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel and resided within a short walk of it. He was accustomed to sleep late in the daytime, to go out in the evening, and to return home in the small hours. He was fond of medical questions, and often made anatomical drawing. He stabbed four girls in the back, and, having tried to cut a relative's throat, was arrested for the offence, when he turned out to be so much of a lunatic that he could not plead, and was sent to the Broadmoor asylum. All this does not show that he committed the crimes set down to Jack the Ripper."
"But look at all the coincidences," said The Sun representative; "his return home with bloodstained clothes, his knife precisely such a one as Jack must have used, a distorted countenance, and the fact that the police find clothes evidently stained with turpentine in his room."
"What of all that?" said Mr. Labouchere. "Who testifies to bloody clothes and to the distorted countenance? A relative. No evidence of this sort is of value until it has been subjected to
THE TEST OF CROSS EXAMINATION.
There is a natural tendency to exaggerate all involving a murder on the part of the witnesses. They improve on facts, and then they stick to their improvements. 'Distrust your own witnesses' is the first rule in these sort of investigations. As for the knife, a great many sorts of knives would have enabled Jack to effect his purpose. As for the clothes, many people clean their clothes with turpentine because they are dirty, not because they are covered with the blood of victims. Evidently the police did not think your lunatic was Jack, or else they would have sought to prove it in order to get the reward."
"Well, my lunatic, as you call him," said the Sun representative, "hinted to many that he was Jack."
"Which," answered Mr. labouchere, "is very strong proof to my mind that he is not. Your lunatic, too, fancied that he had some malady, and took remedies for it. Is a man a murderer because he is a malade imaginaire?"
The Sun representative was not to be done down in this weeping fashion. He pointed to the vast number of coincidences, and asked Mr. Labouchere whether he considered that no murder could be proved by a number of circumstantial proofs, all leading to one conclusion.
"Of course it can," replied Mr. Labouchere," murders, indeed generally are proved by circumstantial evidence, for if a man intends to murder another, he tends to be hanged; he does it secretly, not in the presence of witnesses. The Broadmoor lunatic
MAY HAVE BEEN JACK,
he may, for all that you know. Jack very probably was the same sort of man as the lunatic. But this, I should fancy, might be said of many inhabitants of this metropolis. But when you have to prove the commission of a murder by an individual, you must show, not that he might have committed it, but that there is no other hypothesis for an admitted effect but one. This you have not done. I read through attentively all the proofs and suggestions of The Sun, for they interested me. The conclusion that I arrived at was that The Sun had made out a fair case for public investigation."
"Then you would recommend public investigation?" asked The Sun representative.
"Yes; if I were Mr. Asquith I should elect a clever officer to look into the matter. He would do so carefully, for I suppose that the reward still remains valid."
"And now, Mr. Labouchere, how about the Lords?"
"I have already told you that I decline to be interviewed on any subject whatever."
The Sun representative withdrew, feeling that he had managed to get an interview out of this very recalcitrant and most dogmatic M.P.
ANOTHER YOUNG MAN
Mr. T J Crotty writes from Ramsgate:-
I read with amazement your account of Jack the Ripper. I had a young man about 27, He came in October, 1890, to us and told me and my wife that he was an ex-medical from the London, but had evidently led a very fast life. He had two cabmen who drove him about at night and at last he got a revolver to shoot me, and I went to his doctor. He was a clergyman's son, and my wife heard him say that he had done something to a woman and she would not live. He treated three or four patients in my house, and subsequent conduct points to him as being the man. He is tall, with dark moustache, and always out at night.
THIS IS NOT A NEWSPAPER DODGE
The editor of the Good Samaritan writes from fleet Street:-
I have read what has appeared in the last four numbers of your go-ahead paper about Jack the Ripper with interest, since your theory quite accords with my own - viz., that the author of the Whitechapel atrocities must have been a madman, probably escaped from an asylum, and that he must now either be dead or again in an asylum. I can of course respect your reasons for not entering fully into details relevant to the poor maniac's kith and kin; nonetheless, I would respectfully venture to suggest that, being a leading public man, concerning a public journal, and making for public good you owe
A DUTY TO THE PUBLIC.
You are considering the feelings of private individuals; and this, having gone so far, you are under an obligation to state the precise offences for which your suspect has been incarcerated in Broadmoor, his name and previous occupations. I find that although I am inclined to pay (with only the smallest reservation) tribute to your superb achievement in having tracked the miscreant, many people are asking if it is "only another newspaper dodge."
THIS IS THE MAN.
Mr. H D Thatcher, of Kennington Park road, writes:-
After reading your story of Jack the Ripper, I must give you a description of my jack. About five years ago a young man, about 25 years of age, used to call here for tobacco, always late at night, about 11 p.m., talkative, always looked excited, a if he had just awoke from a long sleep, never talked to anyone in the shop but myself. His conversation was always about the way his face was twisting, always drawing up, and then in a most excited state tell me of the doctor administering a drug to poison him with, if the doctor offering him some thousands of pounds to compensate him, his refusal, and wanted a criminal prosecution against him. On one occasion he had communicated with the Public Prosecutor, also several M.P.s amongst them Mr. labouchere, who was going to bring a Bill before the House to prevent doctors dispensing their new prescriptions. Nearly every time he came here I had the same mad story. Sometimes he would lay an envelope on the counter addressed to persons of rank, would have a postage stamp stuck on it, but I never saw him post one. The box is only a few doors from here, His conversation led
TO AN OLD BLIND CAT I HAD.
I wished it would die. He once suggested some wonderful poison he had. I thanked him and refuse, and bade him good night, being then 11.30 p.m., the time I closed the shop. He darted off as usual without bidding me good night. It was a thing he never did was to say good night to me. To my surprise when I got outside I found him there. He tried hard for me to accept the poison, and told me in a cunning way that if I wanted to get rid of anyone it was a wonderful poison, as it left no trace of the death. I have noticed his walk as quiet still. His money was often marked with a black stain. He aid he had been using chemicals. Always talking about anatomy and chemistry. What with his distorted face, and prosecuting the doctor for poison, and showing me murder on easy terms, I though I had better get rid of him, so the next time he came I called him "Jack the Poisoner," and off he darted and I have not seen him since.
TWO COINCIDENCES.
Pall Mall, W., writes:-
There is as much of circumstantiality about your story of the Whitechapel tragedies, and no clear evidence that you have kept back many of the most important facts bearing upon your inquiry, that I have slowly come to the conclusion that you have, at least, made out a very good case for official investigation. Two coincidences impress me more than the others. In the first place the period of the murders seems to exactly fit the opportunities for their commission possessed by your lunatic. In the second, the difference in degree between
THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL CONDITION
of the man who is today in Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum and the same man three years ago when escaping from police and workhouse officials, argues that at an earlier stage of his career he must have been endowed with a wonderfully acute intelligence and splendid athletic powers. These are also attributes which, I take it, must he granted to the real criminal, whoever he may be. There are other equally convincing details in your story, and I for one would be glad to know whether or not your views are borne out by a skilled official investigator.
(Message edited by Chris on June 06, 2005) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2082
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 6:50 pm: |
|
AP
the section regarding the findings in the garret that I could not make out lead up to "Now we ask distinctly whether these were not the exact kind of drawings that would be found in the rooms (?) of Jack the Ripper?"
This whole section is below:-
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4514
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 7:20 pm: |
|
Thanks Chris. I wish I had some eternal cigarettes...
One of the things that intrigues me, is that the paper had actually interviewed a previous lodger, "HL", who'd known Cutbush. Tracking him down must have taken some work. I can only imagine that the police gave the journalists his name and address. The police themselves must have taken their investigation seriously to actually track him down themselves. There was no lodger listed in the 1891 census apart from Mr Petrolei, who I think was still with the Hayne sisters in 1901, unmarried, so "HL" wasn't him. Perhaps the police contacted the lodger through his leaving a forwarding address? Anyhow, they seem to have been interested enough to do it. So I can't understand why they didn't check the outhouse.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 699
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 10:49 pm: |
|
This Mr. Labouchere seems like a very intelligent man, or at least very practical. "Hundreds of men might have been Jack, only one man was." and "'Distrust your own witnesses' is the first rule in these sort of investigations." are especially sensible observations that are just as true now as they were back then.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2083
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 1:41 am: |
|
Here is the last article - an editorial from the 19th feb. this come to a halt in mid sentence with no indication on which page the conclusion is to be found - it is definitely not continued in any of the other columns on the same page
Chris
19 February 1894
THE DISCOVERY OF JACK THE RIPPER
(Editorial)
Slowly but steadily, the public has come to the same conclusion as that to which we have been forced by months of investigation - that in the witless wretch who is at present in Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum we have traced the author of the Whitechapel murders. We are not surprised that our statement should at first have been received with a certain degree of incredulity. Theories with regard to the identity of this murderer have been presented to the public by the score; time has passed away, and the theory has been forgotten. In the first article, too, which was published on the subject, we had to be satisfied with giving nothing beyond the broad outlines of our information. The manner in which we came to publish the article throws some light on contemporary journalistic methods. We had this information for months in our office, for moths the representatives of the paper have been searching for witnesses, examining them, often finding them only after weeks of patient labour. It was not our intention to have published the story for some weeks to come, but on Monday night I was called out to the Lobby of the House of Commons by two of my staff, to tell me that a portion of our information was to be offered to two morning papers. I am glad to say, for the credit of journalism, that The Morning, a Conservative contemporary, refused to have anything to do with a discovery the credit of which belonged to another office; in other quarters the taste and the honour were not so delicate as we had anticipated, and there was consequently nothing for it but to stop up all night and bring out The Sun as a morning paper at five o'clock instead of an evening paper at the usual hour. Our staff - editorial, compositors, machine men, and cart men - were summoned; we all stayed through the watches of the night in consultation and in preparing the matter for publication; and day had already broken before any of us were able to start for our homes. It will be understood under these circumstances how our story on the first day suffered from indefiniteness; we were simply marking time, and had to await the opportunity of further consultation with our legal advisers before we could bring before the public the full materials at our command.
What reserve we had to make to defeat the acts of rivals, we were bound still further to increase by our sense of the public welfare and our desire to spare feeling. Many correspondents have written to us to demand that we should give the name of Jack the Ripper to the public. We may to do so in the end, but we shall do so unwillingly, for it is hard to make the innocent suffer for the guilty, and to expose the unhappy relatives - if such there still be - to the reprobation which will gather around his name. But we shall send to the police, when they ask for it, all the material at our disposal. The name which we had to tell under initials will be revealed to them. We have likewise the addresses, the occupations, all the particulars, with regard to all the persons who can either entirely reveal or throw considerable light on the mystery we claim to have solved. We understand that the attention of the highest police authorities has been called to our statements, and we confidently look forward to our story being subjected to the closest and most searching investigation. We believe that with others, as with us, facts will point irresistibly to the conclusion that the man we point out is undoubtedly the long sought criminal.
It will after all be a relief to the public mind to feel that this inhuman - or, rather, non human - monster is safe from all possibility of doing further harm. He has reached the stage when the decay of the mind has almost become complete, and probably the process of mental deterioration has already proceeded far enough to make him quite unconscious of his acts at the time when he committed the murders. From what we know of him - from the description given of him by our representative in the interview he had with him in Broadmoor - it is quite plain that mental derangement has produced an absolute eclipse of the moral nature. This man would commit a murder not only without remorse, but perhaps even without realising it a short time after he had committed it. It was thus possible for him to leave the scene of one of his crimes with but a partial recollection of what he had done. He would have neither terror nor remorse because he was destitute of mind and memory. In short, he would just feel after one of his crimes as might a tiger which had devoured a human being.
It is awful to think that human nature is capable of descending to these bestial depths; but in these things we must face the issue clearly and boldly; and if human beings of this kind exist - and they do - we must patiently analyse, study, dissect them until we come to the physiological basis of their abnormality. A complete study of this creature in his Broadmoor cell ought to give science some clue to the intimacy of the connection between the loss of brain power and the loss of moral conscience. Probably all this awful and fiendish wickedness and cruelty will be traceable to some lesion of the brain - inherited from dead ancestors - and aggravated by the habits of the creature's own idle, dissolute, and worthless life. It is a great thing to have set the public mind at rest as to the possibility of a repetition of these crimes; but it is a much more important matter to have facilitated such a study of this monstrosity as will cast the light of
(Article incomplete)
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2084
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 2:02 am: |
|
I have just found that my eye jumped a paragraph in one article and it was omitted. The following comes in the Labouchere interview article, between the paragraphs headed A DUTY TO THE PUBLIC and THIS IS THE MAN.
A COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS.
"A Liberal" writes:-
I have read with intense interest your thrilling account of the discovery and also of the career of the ruffian known to the world as Jack the Ripper. The story which you have given to us with so much dramatic power seems to me to establish the identity of the miscreant beyond all possible doubt. Sir, is it not clear that the matter must not be left where it stands? Surely some action by the Home Office is necessary. What have the Police authorities to say? It reflects no credit on Scotland yard that the detection of this infamous scoundrel should be left to the enterprise of The Sun. If Scotland Yard still entertains a doubt, let Mr. Asquith appoint a committee of experts to examine into and sift the mass of evidence which you have gathered with so much labour.
(Message edited by Chris on June 07, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4515
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
The "Sun" seems to be saying that all this will be news to the police!
Robert |
Timsta
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Amazed to see the name "Tottie Fay" in the Sun article. Would this be the same person as "Tot Fay", supposed progenitor of the "Fairy Fay" myth?
regards
timsta
|
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
I also can comment on various mental illnesses. I agree 100% with your assessment of Thomas Cutbush and the circumstances surrounding his mental instability as well as his capability to change MO's. A stay in a lunatic asylum would certainly explain his disappearance and reappearance as you described.
best regards
Restless Spirit
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 405
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
I have a question about the "distorted face". What do you suppose this means? A tic of some sort? Scarring? Blemishes? Bell's palsy?
Mags
|
Christopher Lowe
Sergeant
Username: Clowe
Post Number: 12
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Several questions:
How reliable was The Sun?
What was its political ethos?
How were stories selected?
How high was Jack the Ripper in the news agenda of 1894?
What was their market?
I believe that these questions have to be asked so that the articles can be given their proper context. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4516
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Hi Christopher
Alex Chisholm is the man to ask there.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2085
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Timsta
Re. Tottie Fay in Broadmoor, the following give some background
Tottie Fay
All from The Times
May 28 1890
LONDON COUNTY SESSIONS
Dolly Le Blance, alias Tottie Fay, Maude Rothschild, Lilly de Herbert, &c., was indicted for obtainign by false pretences from Harriet Moore, a quantity of food, value 3s., with intent to defraud. She was further charged with stealing a bonnet, value £2, the property of Sarah Maria Green. Mr. Bodkin prosecuted. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. Detetive Gregory said that he had known the prisoner for eight years as a disorderly and troublesome character in the West end of London. She had been twice previously charged with felony, and only came out of prison on the 1st of March, the day before she committed the offence charged in the present indictment. The prisoner pleaded that drink was the cause of all her trouble. Sir P Edlin sentenced her to six months' hard labour.
April 11 1891
At Marlborough street, the notorious character who has appeared many times at west end police courts under various names, the best known of which is Tottie Fay, was charged with obtaining by fraud food and lodging to the value of 10s from magnus Heierlei, the proprietor of Fischer's Hotel, Clifford street, W. She now gave the name of Lilly St. John, refusing her addressm and describing herself as an actress, 25 years of age. She was attired in here usual fantastic fashion, and while in the dock assumed an air of injured innocence. William R Theobald, the porter of the htel in question, said that at 2 o'clock on Thursday morning the prisoner rang the bell, and when he opened the door came inside and said that she had engaged room No 5, mentioning also that her father and mother had stayed there last week. Believing what she said to be true, he showed her into the room referred to, and left her there. The prosecutor deposed that the prisoner ordered and was served with breakfast. In consequence of something which came to his knowledge during the day, he, at 8 o'clock in the evening, told her to leave the house, giving her at her request 20 minutes in which to get ready. Having allowed that time to expire without having taken her departure, she was told that if she did not at once leave a policeman would be fetched. Her reply being that she did not care what he did and that she was determined to "kick up a row," he sent to the nearest police station and on the arrival of Constable Colby, 75 C, gave her into custody.
The prisoner - Oh, monsheer, you know you said that you would look over it, did you not? Monsheer, don't press the charge. I am a young lady who has seen a great deal of trouble.
The officer Colby said that when he took the woman into custody she said she would make it for for Mr. Heierlei when she got free.
The prisoner (pointing to the porter) - He must have known that no respectable lady would have been out at that hour of the night, particularly without an escort.
Mr. Newton remanded the woman for a week so that the servants who waited upon her might be called.
May 6 1891
COUNTY OF LONDON SESSIONS
Lilly St. John, 42, was charged with two cases of obtaining food by false pretences. Mr. Slade Butler was for the prosecution. The prisoner was a woman who has for many years been constantly before criminal courts, generally on charges arising our of drunkenness, and who is well known by the name of Tottie Fay. In the first case with which she was now charged...
(The facts as in the previous article are repeated)
In the second case she had gone to the Cavendish Hotel, Jermyn street, about 4 a.m., and, representing herself as a friend of the proprietor, was admitted. She obtained food there in the same manner. The prisoner, addressing the jury, said that she was a young lady who had got into much trouble through drink. She had a situation as a lady's maid promised her if she got out of this trouble. Her true age was 26, and she came of a rich family. The jury found her Guilty, and a female warder gave a list of her former convictions. The learned Chairman said he thought the prisoner would be better for a long period of seclusion, and he should sentence her to the longest term which could be given to an incorrigible rogue and vagabond - that was, to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour.
May 16 1892
At Marlborough street, Tottie fay, who refused to give her age and address, alias mabel carlton, Maud Rothschild, Maud Le Blanc, &c., was charged before Mr. Newton with behaving in a disorderly manner and with using obscene language in the public highway. The woman is a notorious character, and has only recently been liberated from prison. She has assumed about 15 different names and has been charged at this court 37 times. Constable Hibberd, 349 D, deposed that at half past 1 o'clock that morning he saw the prisoner catching hold of gentlemen in Portland place. When he told her to go away she turned round and swore at him.
The prisoner - Disgusting lies. I could not think of using such words.
Continuing, the constable said that he had spoken to the woman about her conduct about half an hour before then.
Mr. Newton - What have you to say?
The prisoner - I am disgusted with his lies. I had been to see a lady friend of mine, and was going across the road, when a gentleman came up and asked me to step into his chambers. I told him I would not. The constable then came up and took my arm. I give you my word that, if I never move out of this dock, I did not use any bad language. The policeman knew, of course, that the only charge he could bring against me was using bad language. I really cannot walk in the streets now. If I have been in trouble before am I to be locked up? Why did the policeman wait until the gentleman had gone away? He ought to have asked him what took place.
Mr. Newton (to the constable( - Did you know this woman when you arrested her?
The officer - No, sir. I have never seen her before.
Mr. Newton (to the prisoner) - Where do you live?
The prisoner - Since I have been out again I have been living in coffee houses until I get my luggage.
Mr. Newton - I know you have no luggage or anything of the sort.
The prisoner (in a whining voice) - Ah, yes, of course you take their word, monsheer.
(Laughter).
Mr. Newton - Now look here, if ever you are brought here again I shall send you to hard labour at once. Now go away and keep away.
The prisoner seemed astonished at being released, stepped quickly out of the dock, and when she got to the door of the Court, called out, "May God bless you, sir. Thank you, sir. I will really try to give up my life. But I was really taken for nothing I assure you, sir."
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2086
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
This is the last mention I can find of Tottie Fay - 27 October 1892. On this charge she was sentenced to 3 years penal servitude but by Feb 1894, the time of the Sun articles, she was violent inmate of Broadmoor.
  |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 521
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 9:57 pm: |
|
This is such terrific material...that I almost hate to ask this here..
A.P...Cutbush believed he had contracted syphilis, correct? I am aware from reading Point # 8 of your "Jack The Myth" that it is stated by you that he did contract syphilis not long prior to the Autumn of Terror.
May I ask,how we know HE knew or felt that he had syphilis and how WE know he actually did ? In other words,is there a reference that perhaps I have overlooked,that gives the doctor/hospital name for this determination ?...I'm not doubting that he did and of course, the realization or belief that he did contract it would be tantamount to him having it,in the final analysis,as he was one whacked out individual. A nod would be as good as a wink to a headcase like Cutbush.
Thank you, A.P.
Warm regards to you too, Luke !
HowBrown
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2088
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 1:08 am: |
|
Christopher L
You asked about The Sun's political ethos. Its own words on the leader page for 19 Feb 1894 might be of interest:
"In political opinion, The Sun, entirely directed by an independent politician, speaks with thorough independence on all contravaried topics, while its forward attitude, its bold initiative, and its strong hold over the masses make it the only organ and the real leader of radical opinion in the Metropolis."
(Message edited by Chris on June 08, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4519
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 3:35 am: |
|
Mags, I don't know what was going on with his face. Apart from maybe some sort of eczema (a bit too old for acne) he also seems to have had intermittent distortions of the features. I've no idea what caused them.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2174
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Yes, Howard, when I produced the ‘Myth’ way back then, I did carry the honest opinion that Thomas Cutbush had contracted the dreaded pox from some ‘unfortunate‘, however my opinion changed when I was able to read up a lot more cases of young men in the same position as Thomas - and through discussion on this board - young men involved in wounding and harming attacks on more mature women; and what seems to creep out then is that the young men imagine themselves to have contracted a disease through sexual intercourse, but the truth of the matter is that these young men were incapable of sexual intercourse.
I think here of killers like Richard Chase - who was known by his high-school girlfriends as ‘no-dick Rich’, or Peter Sutcliffe who was also known as ‘no-dick’.
Richard Chase similarly thought that he was suffering from some dreadful disease brought on by intimate contact with the female sex, no matter that he never had that intimate contact.
Sutcliffe failed to earn the five quid he paid to a working whore, and when she joshed him about his lack of potential in that area, he decided to start killing whores, but he attempted to make his crimes appear as if sexual intercourse had taken place.
Similarly Colin Pitchfork used foreign objects to transfer semen into the body of his victims to make it appear as if he had raped them.
It’s all imagination and magical thinking you see.
If you can’t satisfy the formula, then you can always destroy it.
And then make it look like you solved the formula.
Anyways, that is my own magical thinking.
Factually, I think it clear that the report here concerning Thomas’ health is from Dr Brooks - I mean just how many doctors was Thomas planning to shoot? - and he states quite clearly that Thomas is not suffering from any form of venereal disease but rather imagines that he does.
As he mentions that he is treating Thomas as an ‘out-patient’, this does seem to indicate that Dr Brooks was actually treating Thomas at a hospital, and given Thomas’ family connections this must have been the London Hospital on Roadside… remember that Thomas’ family once owned this site and were intimately connected to the London Hospital.
Further research will clear this up.
Anyways I’m still studying the first reports and haven’t even had time to read the latest news from Cutbush land from Natalie and Chris, for which they have my honest thanks and appreciation. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
In seeking a point of contact between Thomas Cutbush and Dr Brooks, I do note that in the reports here that on the 15th November 1890 the unnamed doctor makes his way to a police station with the threatening letter from Thomas, is redirected to a parish official, and in turn is sent by the parish official to the workhouse in -----. When there the doctor was informed that a medical officer and a Justice of the Peace had been to Thomas’ house but he had hopped over the wall.
The doctor was then sent to the magistrate at the police court but was again redirected back to the workhouse in ----.
Now let us all join hands to see if we can conjure up the name of the medical officer in charge of the lunatic ward at Mile End Workhouse in 1890 ?!!?
It was none other than Dr Brooks. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4522
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
AP, sorry, don't follow. Why Mile End?
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2024
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Well wouldnt that go someway towards locating Thomas in 1890?..and if he was there in 1890
he was probably a resident of Whitechapel immediately prior to being placed there.
It interested me that he headed for the Camden Canal when he left the young couple having introduced himself to them as someone who did " cut up girls and lay them out"[but wasnt Jack the Ripper].Clearly they found him a well spoken rather gentlemanly type despite his ravings and seem to have felt rather sorry for this quite friendly but distressed, demented version of Thomas.
Thomas meanwhile was heading for where he felt safest-so he said anyway-"the fields"----of Hampstead ----or perhaps the next village to it Highgate? I wonder did he visit any Cutbush relatives running the Garden Centre there?
Another avenue of thought led me to the Grand Union Canal itself which passes North from Camden Lock over past the Angel in Islington and East towards Bethnal Green-at one point its only a quarter of a mile from Bethnal Green/Mile End
and just before this runs North of Liverpool Street Station[which is 5 minutes from Dorset Street etc]making an easy walking distance from the murder sites.
Moreover these canals have long held an attraction for some reason to those confined to mental institutions especially if they escape -----maybe its because of their solitude?Also the Toepaths and locks and tunnels make ideal hiding places----and washing places too!
Thomas, its said, often returned home covered in mud.I can just see Thomas jumping the wall to the safety of the cowfield behind that yard in 29 Hanbury Street where poor Annie was cut up and laid out!
But those canals fascinate me I wonder.....
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Robert
That's because you drink tea and I drink brandy.
Because it was there, is my only possible answer.
A Dr Brooks also worked at the Royal Free Hospital in 1882, but whether it was the father or son, I don't yet know.
The Mile End Dr Brooks dealt with some spectacular cases, a chap set fire to his wife, she ran out of the house, was put out by neighbours and then delivered to Dr Brooks naked... there wasn't a lot he could do.
Sorry, Robert, but I suppose my thinking is that we still do not know where Thomas was for almost two years, and I sort of thought well, maybe he was a patient with Dr Brooks at Mile End before he became an out-patient.
My point being that Thomas was an obvious lunatic in 1888, and it is likely that he spent time in various institutions - some of which we know - and somewhere along the line he bumped into a Dr Brooks, so I thought it was just neat to find a Dr Brooks who was in charge of lunatics at that time in the East End.
Or have I been drinking far too much brandy, and Mile End is in Dorset?
This is entirely possible. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4524
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
Those damned rose-sniffers are following me again!
Seriously, there was a Cutbush who may have worked on a canal - an employee of the New River Company, or something like that. This may be the one who fished a woman out of a canal?
Re the facial distortions, there's a reference to Thomas being prescribed strychnine(!) I know that when strychnine kills, it leaves on the face of the victim an expression that's sometimes compared to a sardonic smile. I wonder, could the poison be taken recreationally, a la Maybrick and his arsenic?
There were two Dr Brookses on Westminster Brisge Rd - Charles, retired, and his son Walter, so I guess it could have been either of those.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4525
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Hi AP
I see your point. And from his reaction to Dr Brooks, when he suspected him of poisoning him - threatening to shoot him - it's easier to understand his reaction to women who he thought had given him syphilis.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2025
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
I think the illness when it strikes often leaves a curious nerve type distortion ,a slight irregularity or lack of symmetry to the face -a little like a very slight stroke might leave.I knew someone who suffered from the illness and he had this curious slight twist to his face.When rested it looked normal but at other times a definite twist was discernible.Maybe it affects the central nervous system to such an extent on occasion that the sufferer is slightly paralysed.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4526
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:47 pm: |
|
AP, Natalie, sorry to be a wet blanket but there's a problem : the Dr Brooks mentioned in the "Times" inquest report of Nov (30th, (I think) 1891 was John Harvey Brooks. I know that "Brooks" is a very common name, but I've not so far found a Dr John Brooks living Westminster Bridge Rd (though there are at least two non-medical Brookses in the road). So if either Charles or Walter were the Dr Brooks referred to by Macnaghten, then it seems to go against the Mile End lunacy link.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2091
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 7:44 pm: |
|
http://frost.bbboy.net/kimberleysfangforum-print?forum=6&thread=4
This link gives the outline of a book written in 2003 (whether published or not I do not know) naming Cutbush as the Ripper. In connection with the Aldgate High Street connection, the summary has this to say:
There is also the odd coincidence of Katerine Eddows death. On the night she was killed she had been arrested for drunk and disorderly at 24 Aldgate High Street. After her release she walked back in that direction, only to find Jack the Ripper in the fog. Over the past few weeks Katherine had had a little more money than usual, and had been boasting that she'd collect the reward for the identity of Jack The Ripper because she knew him. Now he's the coincidence. City of London, Whitechapel District lists among the inhabitants of 24 Aldgate High Street, one Thomas Cutbush.
Chris |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 408
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
Robert, please don't use the "M" word. 
Schizophrenics are notorious self-medicators. Strychnine was used in ancient times by athletes as a stimulant (how dumb were they!!)
Nats, when you say "the disease" are you referring to schizophrenia? I find it very likely that Thomas was suffering from it, most of symptoms indicate that and we know the condition is genetic--Uncle Charles certainly skated on the edge.
Mags
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2026
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 3:33 am: |
|
Mags,
Thats right.Every symptom we hear about so far from believing doctors were out to poison him ,his preoccupation with his self medication through to and including his "mirror gazing"[narcissism]point to paranoid schizophrenia.
And that he suffered from the most dangerous form of that the illness can be deduced from the unsolicited attack on the elderly colleague who he lay in wait to attack because he had made fun of Thomas"s "vanity"-looking in a mirror at himself so frequently.The fact that he left him for dead, without any hint of remorse ,even making up lies about how it had happened ,is a very clear indication indeed that this was the illness/disease that Thomas Cutbush suffered from
and therefore ,if he was a suspect at the time should have been considered a "prime suspect"
and investigated thoroughly.
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.
|
|
|
|
