|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4530
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 4:52 pm: | 
|
I've just been looking at a modern map of Lambeth. Albert St seems to either not be there or to have changed its name. Aldebert Rd as Chris says is no more, though it may now be Aldebert Terrace. What struck me is that Aldebert Terrace, Durand Gardens (where Kate moved to) and Burnley Rd (CHC) are all withing 2 or 3 minutes walk of each other.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4531
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Actually it was Aldebert Terrace in 1891.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Robert
you'll fuse my poor old brain with this!
I'll go back and check everything again when I get some precious time, but the Dr Brooks I was looking for was the Walter Brooks - I think middle name Tyrrell - and I was sort of hedging my bets that he was one of the two doctors involved in the active pursuit of Thomas on that day, either the Dr Brooks of the lunatic ward of Mile End Workhouse who wanted to catch him, or the Dr Brooks of Westminster Bridge Road who also wanted to catch him for sending shoot-you-sir letters.
Quite honestly I'm happy enough with one Dr Brooks, but if there are two Dr Brooks involved then I'm happy with a pair.
We'll get there, I'm sure.
By the way, the run-around that the one doctor was given by parish, police, workhouse and court officials in his attempt to prosecute Thomas for sending the letters was certainly quite remarkable; and I have yet to come upon a similar situation involving such threatening letters - and I've studied a whole suitcase full of them - as usually the prosecution of the offender was a simple affair.
Poor old Dr Brooks never got his prosecution, but he saw a lot of the East End that day. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2028
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
You know Robert it seems to me that Lambeth was not where Thomas Cutbush lived during the Autumn of 1888.
The Sun makes a series of allegations,without actually naming Cutbush and they say on several occasions that Cutbush lived only minutes from where these murders were committed.They must have had a reason for saying this so its important in my view to try to find out where he lived in the Autumn of 1888 and not during the series of attacks on women in 1891.
But I see your point above---remarkable!Very close neighbours indeed.
The other areas that need further investigation are, ofcourse,what he was doing/where he was etc between Dec 1888 and March 1891.
The sun claimed to have papers on him and a mass of evidence with which to substantiate those
claims but unfortunately up to now we have no way of gaining access to that "mass" of evidence!---not so far anyway.
Very strict processes once governed the British Press.Every newspaper had its own "legal experts" combing every article for libel/slander/defamation of character.Every so often an editor or newspaper proprietor would flout the rules and decide to risk a potential law suit-still do-hence the famous Beaverbrook[?]
remark "Publish and be damned!
But the Sun appears to have decided to play both ends against the middle somehow.On the one hand they say they know who the ripper was but they actually only drop hints as to his identity.
We know who they are talking about through Machnaghten who goes out of his way to diminish
their claims---without giving any reason.Then as we all know ,in this same internal memorandum [intended for the Home Secretary presumably] he makes the unsupported claim that he thinks Druitt
was probably the ripper![but all the facts are wrong here].
I think AP was right.It was a sort of "Call his bluff" ploy on behalf of the Sun----which didnt work-most probably because the Chief Commissioner of Police refused to play!
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Nicely put, Natalie
These things drag on, but in the end I think Scotland Yard did play.
Chief Executive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush finally got rid of his headache, and Scotland Yard finally got rid of Chief Executive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4532
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Hi AP, Natalie
AP, I'm afraid the situation is even worse than you feared, because there were in fact FOUR Dr Brooks - Charles Brooks (father), Robert Charles Brooks, Walter J (John, I think) Brooks and Frederick William Brooks (sons). There were Dr Brooks at Westminster Bridge Rd between at least 1867 - 1913 - I found three references to them using the address as a "Times" search term (137 WBR).
Frederick William seems to have moved back in by 1883, then out again - I think he settled in Kennington Rd.
Natalie, re where Thomas was living in 1888 : in the link that Chris gave, an author asserts that he was living at 24 Aldgate High St - but I haven't seen the author's evidence for that.
It's an attractive idea to have Thomas living in the East End, but then doesn't that tend to nullify the accounts of him coming home covered in mud etc?
Thinking though of Sir Melville's remark that it was found impossible to ascertain THC's movements on the nights of the murders : maybe this itself implies that THC wasn't living at home at the time. For how could the police ascertain someone's movements on particular nights over two years before? I suspect that Sir Melville meant "wherabouts" or even "residence" rather than "movements". How could his movements possibly have been ascertained, short of Kate and Clara reporting that they'd sat knitting beside his bed all night?
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2029
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
Regarding the question about the Sun Newspaper.It was founded by TP O"Connor as a London Evening Newspaper starting in 1893 and folding in 1906. In the 1870"s T P O"Connor had been a sub-editor of the Daily Telegraph and later in the 1870"s had worked in the London Office of The New York Herald Tribune.
As Chris says above it was politically independent but considered itself radical for its times.
Scanning through the copy of the various journalists its clear that the paper mostly employed educated and rather literary/political type journalists.In other words it wasnt a "rag".
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Robert
'Doctor, doctor give me a clue
I got a bad case of losing you'.
My little song for the gaggle of Dr Brooks'.
It was such a good find, but I suppose I must give it up under the weight of your excellent post.
Yes, Natalie
I still rate those 'Sun' articles as being very well researched and produced, and I would love to get hold of the evidential material they had in their possession at the time.
Were they taken over?
Or did the Sun just disappear.
Because if they were taken over the documents might still be on file in some dusty archive.
Sorry Folks, but I'm still reading the first few reports and following them up. Could be some time before I contribute to the discussion.
Oh Robert, regarding your last post, it is mentioned in the reports that one of Thomas' relatives did just what you suggest, sat up with his or her knitting and waited for the little toe rag all night just to see if the poor little waif wanted some supper. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4535
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
AP, I'm not saying that there was no family relationship with the Mile End Brooks, just that it's yet to be established.
Sorry about the Cuthbert/Cutbush and Brooks/Brooks wet blankets.
I hope for your part you won't seek revenge by trying to establish that Oliver Hardy was a wife-beating necrophiliac drug addict with Nazi sympathies!
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
No worries Robert
just teething problems.
We all chew the stairs before we can climb them.
And then get pushed down them when we get to the top.
Your careful and exact input is always welcome, Robert, and acts as a useful brake to my wild and sometimes reckless manner.
Wasn't Oliver Hardy Clint Eastwood's dad? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4536
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Go ahead, Stanley. Make my day. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2030
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
re your post of 10 June on what happened to the Sun newspaper:
After it folded in 1906 such a newspaper scoop as the series on Cutbush would have almost certainly have been kept by someone---most probably its editor,T.P. O"Connor.
In 1888 O"Connor had worked for The Star newspaper.
Probably AFTER the Sun folded in 1906 he was offered the London Evening News,but it could have been a little earlier.
A group called "Remember When" put me in touch with a librarian from one of the Nationals who said it was a bit unclear whether O"Connor had taken up an offer of a post on The Evening News in 1902 or whether this was in fact an offer made in 1906 and accepted in 1906.
It matters because if he was with the Sun, which was very much his baby,it would probably have been O"Connor who took with him the material gathered on Thomas Cutbush ,as he was responsible for its publication/copyright/and safekeeping which, had it got into the wrong hands, could have had him sued.
If though, he moved on to the Evening News these documents would probably have found their way to the shelves/archives of the Sun"s Fleet Street[?-probably] lawyers Office which had advised O"Connor on his legal position in the first place.
The Evening News became The Evening Standard eventually-the only London Daily to still exist.
Later, in 1911 O"Connor took on the Herald and then The Reynolds News.
He died in 1929.
Possibly his family still possess
information on this-but probably not.The most likely people to still possess such papers or know what became of them would be the original firm of solicitors which no doubt still operates in or around that same newspaper world-most of which have moved away from Fleet Street now-but not necessarily their legal advisers who would have had offices either in Fleet Street or a little further along at The Temple [same place as Druitt had his Chambers].
Thats as far as I can go at present.
Its of great importance because it would no doubt tell us where Thomas Cutbush was between December 1888 and New Year 1891.
Best
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Thanks for all that Natalie.
You have been busy!
Very, very useful information and I'll see if I can't get behind it myself, though unlike you I do not think the material would have been archived at the solicitors, but rather with an editorial stack.
This because I think the 'Sun' had a good hand, and feared no official come-back, just the endless damage limitation that the Yard offered in exchange.
Thanks for all your hard work, and I do hope something turns up. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2031
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Well all I did was pick up the phone!
My ex worked in Fleet Street as a journalist for quite a long time so I know a fair bit about how it used to work.You are probably right though-it"ll probably be in a newspaper stack somewhere!
Natalie |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 840
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 3:04 am: |
|
I have just gotten around to reading this fascinating thread and the Sun articles wonderfully transcribed by Chris Scott. I had always wondered what they said and I never realized they did not implicate Cutbush by name.
While interesting, I find these articles rather unbelievable. They seem to contain elements of several suspects: Kosminski, Druitt, "the Lodger," Chapman, and even James Kelly (although he would seem to have been unknown to the press as a Ripper suspect then) in addition to Cutbush. This is the classic hallmark of an "urban legend." Furthermore, could Cutbush really have gone around stabbing young ladies with a Bowie knife??? Such a knife is also not what is described as most likely to have been used in the Ripper murders (and Macnaghten says the knife was purchased well after the Whitechapel murders).
Should we look more at Cutbush? Certainly.
Is he likely to be the WHitechapel murderer. No.
Andy S. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2035
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 9:29 am: |
|
Hi Andrew,
I was married to a journalist working on Fleet Street for quite some time.From what I understood the libel laws were ALWAYS very strict,more so the further back you go in England.iImprisonment for the editors of seditious or libelous journals or newspapers being common.
It has only been very recently that the laws have relaxed a little and even now -only last year the Editor of the very popular daily the Daily Mirror had to resign for comments he made about the government.And in the USA I bet Martin Bashir is trembling in his boots at this moment now the Michael Jackson verdict has been announced!
Machnaghten obviously knew who the Sun was referring to.He names the man for us.
So eventually would the Home Secretary know via Machnaghten.But the Sun was NOT prosecuted.This very silence actually tells us something about the matter.
In fact the whole matter seems to have been left in the air.Had any of the Sun"s reporting been untrue or in error I believe they would most definitely have been called to account.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4546
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
There is an interesting article about Broadmoor at http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xgribro.htm
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2036
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Andrew
"Should we look more at Cutbush?Certainly.
Is he likely to be The Whitechapel murderer?No."
What makes you say this, Andrew?
Is it possible to have any discussion about it?
Natalie
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 842
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Natalie,
I assume you are asking why I say Cutbush is not likely to be the Whitechapel murderer. Certainly it is possible to have discussion about it. Note that I am not saying that it is impossible that Cutbush is the Whitechapel murderer, just that it is unlikely.
My reasons:
#1 The main body of evidence against him is a series of newspaper articles. Not very convincing. Furthermore, I find these articles rather unbelievable, much in the form of urban legend, with pieces borrowed from the stories of many suspects.
#2 Cutbush's crimes are more that of a mischievous "prankster." Such buttocks-stabbing vilians were not unique to the time. Consider the strange saga of Rhenwick Williams (aka The London Monster) 100 years earlier. Such individuals are not serial killers or even particularly vicious.
#3 A Bowie knife? Come on, now.
#4 He is totally discounted by Macnaghten (unless, of course, this is a cover-up -- but then we start to lose credulity).
I will say this about the articles: they make one good point. I believe that it is totally correct to say that the Ripper got away with his madness largely because he was so disturbed and disorganized that he carried out his crimes nonchalantly and in his naivté didn't try to cover them up and then blended right into the public. Often, the safest place to hide is out in the open. These killers are often the hardest to find while those who try to over-organize and plan for every contingency usually overlook something and are caught. Take Leopold and Loeb for example.
Andy S. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 722
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
Not to speak for Andrew here, but, yes, we can have a discussion about it, but realistically I think a lot of people discussing it would strongly echo his statements.
One thing to note about the Sun articles is that they just sort of define what kind of person they think the Whitechapel Murderer would be, basing it upon what they know about their suspect, and then later when they describe their suspect the two match and they try to use that as evidence that he really was Jack the Ripper. That's circular reasoning in its most pure form.
Plus the kinds of things they are describing as important for finding the killer don't really sound at all convincing based upon what we learned about Jack in particular and serial killers in general since then. For example, they make a huge deal out of how Jack was supposedly left handed and how Cutbush supposedly used each hand equally to eat with once in the asylum. Not only does that not indicate that he'd use a knife in his left hand but the whole left-handed aspect was based upon misinterpretation of the evidence of Nichols' death that the doctor involved later clarified and other doctors spelled out. Apparently the Sun missed all that.
But no matter which way we cut it, the fundamental part here that doesn't ring true is the idea that an extremely efficient killer who knew how to disable people before killing them quickly by cutting their throats would somehow change to just sort of running up to women and poking them in the behind. If this person were Jack and wanted to hurt these women, there'd be no tentative poking. Even if his mental condition had deteriorated substantially the change of approach is difficult to explain, as these public stabbing types (of which there have been a long, long string of different ones, see Jan Bondeson's book on The London Monster or the "Serial Sadistic Stabbers" article he wrote in the October 2004 issue of Ripper Notes) have never been linked to more serious cases.
The Cutbush being described in this article is fundamentally different from the kind of person Jack the Ripper would be. Barring other research indicating that the real Cutbush was different from this, it seems fairly unlikely that he had anything to do with the Autumn of Terror.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4547
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Hi Dan
Re the jobbing : I'll leave to AP and Natalie the criminology and the psychology, because I don't know much about either.
It seems to me though that a lot depends on what kind of killer Jack was. If he was an "in control" psychopathic sort of person, then I guess one wouldn't expect to find him doing anything except murders, or murder attempts. But if he was a disorganized paranoid schizophrenic sort of person, then surely it would be remarkable if he'd stuck to only murders or murder attempts. (He could of course have been mixed).
Robert |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 724
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Yes, if Jack were a psychopath, it's nothing at all like Cutbush. On the other hand, if he were disorganized the two kinds of kinds of crimes being discussed here still are substantially different.
Organized or not, I would also find it remarkable if Jack stuck only to murders, but then all crimes are not equally supportive of the idea that someone could be a serial killer. The Sun approach seems to have been to make overly broad generalizations (ones that if used fairly would equally apply to hundreds if not thousands of other people) and conclusions based upon mistaken notions.
But then some things are pretty consistent through the years.
The pushing the guy down the stairs incident I would agree is an interesting point of comparison, though not all that compelling, but the poking women in public part just does not ring true.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2193
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Robert & Natalie
all I can say is lucky that Thomas Cutbush had an important relation at Scotland Yard.
This is one of the many factors that really sets him apart from any other suspect; and it is noteworthy that the posters above do not mention this salty fact.
The Macnaghten Memo would never have been written unless uncle Charles was there at Scotland Yard. The Macnaghten Memo was written for uncle Charles.
Thereby we always hold the wild card.
Play what card you like, we have the wild one.
I like that.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2039
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Just to say thanks for your posts Andrew and Dan.
I know I have said this before on here but since it happens to be my present thinking on Thomas Cutbush I will repeat the gist of it.
1] When Thomas took offence over his elderly
colleague ribbing him about his vanity there was nothing normal about his reaction.In fact he responded with a murderous attack viz:lying in wait in a dark corner and then leaping out and throwing the man downstairs and leaving him for dead without a twinge of conscience.
Now when you are talking about the murderous attacks of psychotic individuals suffering from paranoid delusions it isnt the same as the murderous attacks of a sexual serial killer such as Bundy for example.
I certainly accept that its possible that the ripper was a sexual serial killer and that if this can be proven then he was unlikely to have been Thomas Cutbush.
But Cutbush could have carried out the Autumn 1888 murders believing himself to have been victimised by prostitutes giving him his [imagined?]syphilis.
I say this for two reasons;
first because
Cutbush was paranoid to the extent that he believed people were attempting to murder him-doctors/pharmacists etc in particular and there were letters written by him at the time to prove it.
second this is the very type of illness which when unchecked can develop into a full blown murderous psychosis.
There is another reason why I think Cutbush could have been the Ripper;
2] The symbolic markings of inverted triangles on Catherine Eddowes eyes.
Whenever there is paranoia there is nearly always this symbolism-usually it concerns a "one eyed one"-an "all seeing, all knowing Being", guiding or "overseeing" ones work.
To me these cuts indicate the ripper was not a typical sexual serial killer but rather a
psychotic delusional killer.
His attacks on girls bottoms three years later could simply mean that he was out of "remission" and starting on another episode of
attacks for a different reason that could have escalated at any moment which maybe why he was sent to Broadmoor.
Natalie |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 846
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Here is an example of what I was talking about earlier. I took this excerpt at random from the casebook press files. From the Leytonstone Express and Independent, Sept 21 1889:
A curious story is published by the New York Herald (London edition). It is to the effect that a man has been found who is quite convinced that the Whitechapel murderer occupied rooms in his house. This man states that suspicion was first aroused by the lodger coming home at about 4 o'clock one morning. He had expected to find everybody in bed, and to be able to get to his room unobserved. To his surprise, his landlord had been kept up waiting for his wife who was on a visit to some friends. The lodger was excited and incoherent in his talk. He said he had been having a rough time, that he had been assaulted, and had his watch stolen, and he gave the name of a police-station where he had laid a complaint. Upon inquiries at the police-station, this story was found to be entirely devoid of foundation. He had made no complaint, and the police had no knowledge of a street disturbance. The man's shirt and underclothing were found hanging over chairs. They had been washed and put out to dry. He was in the habit of talking about the women of the street, and wrote "long rigmaroles" about them. His writing in minute particulars resembled that of the letters sent to the police purporting to come from "Jack the Ripper." He had a wardrobe which included eight suits of clothes, eight pairs of boots, and eight hats. The man can speak several languages, and when he went out he always carried a black bag. He was apparently well off, and never wore the same hat on two successive occasions. When he left his lodgings a quantity of bows, feathers, and flowers, and other articles which had belonged to the lower class of women were found in his room. He also left behind him three pairs of boots and three pairs of galoshes. The boots are ordinary leather lace-up boots with thin soles. The galoshes have india-rubber bottoms and American cloth uppers, and are bespattered with blood. The individual who supplies the above story has (according to the New York Herald) reason to believe that another murder will be committed shortly. Some writing to this effect, and said to be written by the suspected man, was found on a wall the other day. A sketch upon paper, of a significant character, has also been picked up near to the spot where the last victim's body was found.
Spot any similarities to the Sun stories???? And this is just one clipping taken at random!
Andy S. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2195
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 4:57 am: |
|
Just because a long, long time ago some old and flatulent Ripposaur rolled over in his long and deep sleep and blew out an enormous fart declaring that: ‘No killer would reduce his crimes to a lesser nature once he has killed’, doesn’t mean that this is some kind of god-given truth.
This is just the sort of bad smell and stains that these stinking old Ripposaurs always leave behind them; and then us poor mortals spend the rest of our lives washing their dirty sheets and spraying air freshener about the place.
Well not this poor mortal.
Many years ago I demonstrated conclusively that this ill-conceived conception was nowt but stuff and nonsense blown straight out of some rancid Ripposaur’s asp. There is an entire chapter devoted to this very subject in the ‘Myth’, which I will not quote here as it might bore those two old Ripposaurs - Ted Ious & Ted Ium - ,so if you are one of the doubters, take ten minutes out of your busy day (to do that you’ll need to take your foot out of your mouth) and read the blathering thing, and then come back here, heart in hand, and tell me that the smell of that old Rip fart has finally gone.
I also think it unfair and unwise to compare a single press report - based on hearsay - with this massive attempt by the ‘Sun’ to flesh out the case of Thomas Cutbush.
As the ‘Sun’ points out they did not research this case for days or weeks, no, they in fact researched it for ‘months‘… and were planning to release the story at a much later date but were pushed into a hurried and early release of the material by a rival newspaper who planned to hijack the important material for their own rag.
It is important to note that the ‘Sun’ was an evening newspaper throughout its entire publishing history, that is until the 13th February 1894 when the entire staff worked through the previous night to launch the ‘Sun’ as a morning newspaper to introduce Thomas Cutbush to the world.
I would describe this as a ‘momentous’ landmark in the Jack the Ripper case.
We really mustn’t be too hasty in dismissing the gigantic efforts of these very real people from history who just simply wanted to know the truth. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4550
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 5:48 am: |
|
Andy, here's one difference between the "Sun" report and the one you quote : the suspect there wasn't (as far as we know) sent to Broadmoor.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2042
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
I do agree with AP here, especially in terms of the speed with which people seem to have always wanted to rush to judgement over the claims made in the Sun"s 1894 Cutbush articles.
The original rubbisher of the Sun"s claims was none other than the Eton educated Sir Melville Leslie Machnaghten,Assistant Chief Constable CID .
Well to quote Mandy Rice Davies about a similar archetypal member of that Victorian male elite establishment "He would ,wouldnt he?"
Then we have.... Anderson another member of that same elite who couldnt even in his wildest moments ever consider an Englishman capable of such barbaric acts....surely it was one of these newly arrived East End Jewish Immigrants?
And even today you can still hear echoes of Anderson and Machnaghten in the conclusions of The FBI"s John Douglas-favouring a Kosminski or a Cohen-----and not even mentioning Thomas Cutbush.
Oh well!
Andrew,
have you ever considered that recurring bouts of psychosis might lead to deterioration,both intellectual and homicidal?
A study of psychosis does not actually lead us into seeing inflexibility in the hands of homicidal maniacs as per Douglas and Canter-though I must admit to having a sneaking admiration for sections of the "non-psychological" aspects of Douglas"s work.
Seriously though by referring to the Sun"s research into the case of Thomas Cutbush as "preposterous"[Sugden] or sesationalist or because of a blanket refusal to consider the Sun"s findings through debate or discussion
is to throw away a potentially vital clue and possibly a vehicle into the whole case.
The Sun Articles are,as AP rightly asserts, a unique example of Early Investigative journalism
hampered by red tape maybe, but thorough,painstaking and detailed as far as they were able to be.
We do Historical research a huge disservice
by ignoring or dismissing these series of articles.
Natalie |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 725
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Hi AP,
I'm all for questioning old assumptions, but the problem here is that in your zeal to complain about farting old Ripperologists you end up trying to question some of the facts that are more strongly established with actual evidence (sex-based serial killing, the difference in psychology between a sadistic behind-stabber and successful serial strangler-mutilator killer) and give a pass to some of the least well established concepts.
I would agree that serial killers can and do change their methods, and can go to less serious crimes from more serious ones, but someone who knew how to efficiently dispatch women and killed them so that he conflict massive mutilations on an unfeeling corpse unseen by others is substantially different than someone who does some tentative pokes purposefully to inflict pain in a different area and in front of witnesses. Switching methods is one thing, this is a completely different mental makeup.
Yes, the Sun wanted to know the truth (or at least sell papers with their version of the truth, as objective reporting has clearly gone completely out the window in these articles) but that doesn't mean they had the required knowledge or perspective to make good judgments about the kind of person they were looking for.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 847
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
My point is this not that the Sun articles and the article I quoted above are talking about the same man.
My point is that the Sun articles appear to have lifted details of the accounts of other suspects: a mysterious lodger who returns disheveled and incoherent in the middle of the night, incriminating evidence found (wet clothes in his room, incriminating drawings, sketches, and letters), ramblings about "loose women," etc.
I'm not so much commenting on whether Cutbush could possibly be the Ripper. As I said earlier, I admit that it is possible. My comment is that the Sun articles do not strike in the least as being "investigative journalism." On the contrary, they appear to be a sensaltionalist blending of lore from earlier accounts of various suspects.
Andy S. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4554
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Hi Andy
Yes, I knew that you weren't saying that your article and the "Sun's" article were about the same man. I was just pointing out that at least the "Sun's" article was about a certified lunatic in the dangerous ward at Broadmoor. This marks it out from many of the articles published during and after the murders.
Re the nocturnal absences and the clothes, Sir M in his memorandum seems to reference what Cutbush's relatives told the police during the 1891 investigation, so this isn't a "Sun" invention. However, Sir M is inclined to dismiss the relatives as hysterical. He disagrees with the "Sun" about the drawings, saying that there were drawings but not of mutilations.
I think it's possible that the newspaper had the assistance of an anonymous policeman in preparing the article. These reports of course won't in themselves convict Cutbush, but I think they're a plus rather than a minus.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Thanks Dan
I guess the real issue here is that we do not yet know what happened to Cutbush after 1888 and before his reappearance on the streets of the East End in 1891.
The present assumption is that he was locked away in one of the many lunatic asylums spread around London, and evidence from his aunt and mother in court does seem to confirm this.
Obviously we are still working to either confirm or dismiss this assumption, but for the moment it does seem the most logical explanation of Thomas’ whereabouts for those missing two years.
Now I am still in the process of tracking certified lunatics - meaning that they had either appeared in court, found unfit to plead and carted off to the workhouse or asylum, or that they had been certified by a member of their immediate family and a doctor (sometimes it required two doctors, the lunacy laws were in flux at that time) - during the LVP, but early results are quite interesting, as I have found that a large number of ‘lunatics’ are confined for a period of two years, and then released as ‘cured’.
However most of these ‘cured’ lunatics of the LVP then go on to re-offend again, and funnily enough their more recent crimes do not often match the seriousness of their former crimes for which they were originally committed.
It might well be that a two year spell in what was honestly ’bedlam’ while not ’curing’ an obvious lunatic may well have reshaped that lunatic’s thinking and behaviour.
Slowed him down so to speak.
We must only look at the complete and utter change in the young man who was Thomas Cutbush when he appeared in court in 1891, and then the man that the Sun reporters found in Broadmoor two and a bit years later in 1894.
From an articulate young man who was able to offer up a perfectly plausible alibi to the police officers who arrested him and accompanied him to court, to a totally catatonic zombie incapable of speech or individual action.
Two years.
I think it wise to not load our service pistols just yet, but wait until the target really appears. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
The more I think about this, then the more I’m put in mind of Ted Bundy and his last few motiveless murders, where he seemed to have totally lost the plot and purpose behind his previous murders; which were skilfully organised and executed, whilst the later crimes appear to be nothing but pure and utter chaos with Ted striking out at random like some kind of killer-toy with fused wires.
Ted always wanted sex with his early victims, that was his motive, but at the end it was just carnage for nothing.
The later ‘Ted’ murders were of course carried out after he had spent a short period of imprisonment, escaped, and while on the run from a police force that was actively hunting ‘him’ rather than an unknown criminal.
It is not difficult to imagine a similar scenario being played out by a Jack the Ripper; involving a burst of activity which satisfies his murderous motive - whatever that is - followed by a spell of confinement, and then a very hot period where he was very much on the run from a police force actively hunting ’him’ down.
In this totally new climate, which others control and organise for a change, Jack finds himself in an ever-narrowing funnel of opportunity and purpose, and just like Ted strikes out at what he understands are his targets but this time in a chaotic fashion which does not reflect his original motive or purpose.
He has forgotten what his victims are for.
He still recognises the target but he sort of hits it in the arse rather than the throat.
Burn-out. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2053
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
An intriguing parallel AP.I didnt know Bundy"s crimes had that sort of dislocated pattern to them.Mmmm....certainly makes me think!
Another thing that has struck me is that around that time women had taken to wearing prosthetic bottoms[the bustle].
If Cutbush had been the ripper and had a fascination for cutting through a woman"s belly
to find what lay beneath he may have had
a dormant interest in bottoms awakened seeing all
these girls with their enormous " false bottoms" waddling by! |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4562
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Hi AP
I think you make a valid point about Cutbush lashing out because he no longer felt in control. This could be what happened.
Also, though, it's perfectly possible that THC was jobbing women in 1888 and after - I think SIr Melville's phrase about "recommencing operations" is a bit misleading here. I'd like to ask Sir Melville : who said the jobbing was new?
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Thanks Natalie and Robert
a dear old friend arrived back from the West Indies last night and made the dreadful error of bringing me back a case of the finest white rum that sugar cane can make, so this may well be my last contributory gesture for some considerable time.
I've often thought that Thomas could have been 'jobbing' women around Whitechapel in 1888, which most respectable women would not have objected to till later, by complaining to the police or their relatives, but I reckon if he had 'jobbed' a whore she would have turned round and directly confronted him, and there just might be the obscure reason he killed whores, and then ripped them apart.
They didn't know their 'job'.
And neither did Thomas. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2056
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Lucky you AP!
But dont desert us ...
and have some fun with your kind friend from the West Indies! |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Natalie
From what I have read about Thomas Cutbush and Uncle Chas. there was no doubt in my mind that the Sun Newspaper reports referred to This family not Kosminski etc. Some have suggested that since the Cutbush name is not mentioned it's possible that the reports refer to others, I fail to accept this. I agree with you and your find was very special. I have never before felt so convinced that Jack has been discovered as I am now with Thomas Cutbush. I leaned toward Kelly and felt that Joe Barnett killed Mary Jane and still do. But your discovery of these newspaper reports convinces me totally that Thomas was Jack and Uncle Charles knew full well that he was, if not part of the sordid events himself.
Great work by you and Chris.
regards
Restless Spirit
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2085
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Restless Spirit,
I myself need to know what happened to Thomas Cutbush between the years 1888 and 1891.
If all we knew of him was that he had deliberately and cold-bloodedly thrown an elderly colleague downstairs and nearly killed him and that he was deeply paranoid to the extent that he thought his doctors were poisoning him
it would be sufficient , working in Whitechapel just prior to the ripper murders, to have such a character looked into.
The Sun did so and discovered much more.
The description given by Sgt White of the refined young man with the musical voice and wild glowing dark eyes emerging from Mitre Square the night of the double event exactly matches the description of Cutbush in the Sun !
The description given by the young couple also tallies with it---
More information needed though especially between those dates.
Thanks for your comments
Natalie |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Natalie
Of course there is more that needs to be verified about Cutbush, I have not based my choice of Cutbush with or without the help of good ole Uncle Chas,on just a whim on my part. I have not just joined the J t R journey, on the contrary, I've been following for years,read book after book, post after post etc, etc. But this is honestly the first time I have felt so sure of Jack's discovery. Uncle Chas plays a very significant part of this decision, not just because of his suicide but his profession is key.
Please give me your opinion of the following opinion of mine:
PC Smith refuses to identify the suspect at, we assume is Kosminski, due to the fact that Aaron is a fellow jew as is Smith. Supposed it were because he was the nephew of Smith's boss, Supt. Charles Cutbush? Kosminski's name is used as a ruse to throw suspicion away from Thomas.The big wigs involved with Metro Police & Scotland Yard are content to know that Thomas is eventually put in an asylum, Uncle Charles commits suicide but the cover up must continue.After all no one wants to admit they covered up evidence to protect the family of one of their own, policepersons now and more than likely then, were a brotherhood(and or sisterhood) who would stop at nothing to keep the name of the force squeaky clean, rightly or wrongly.
Just a thought on my part, leave no stone unturned, so to speak.
Luv to hear back.
Restless Spirit
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2091
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Restless Spirit
I guess all this is a possibility.Just about!
I think though that they seem to have got pretty mixed up[M. and A] regarding names,dates etc and Abberline
pooh pooh"s both Macnaghten"s ideas and Anderson"s and says they were right off beam!JtR wasnt the drowned doctor or the Kosminski suspect.
I truly doubt any conspiracy would have been as convoluted as you suggest.
If Thomas Cutbush was the ripper then I bet Charles would have been the one to make absolutely certain that his colleagues in the yard did not get to know.
One thing does sound well strange to me and that is Sgt White"s description.
If we can leave aside whether it sounds more like Druitt than Cutbush ,which I don"t accept currently, this was apparently released after he died in 1919.However I have read that in fact his sighting was widely circulated amongst the police
AT THE TIME.Also that it formed the basis of their "identikit" so to speak.
Now if that really is the case then not only do WE know what the ripper looked like and sounded like and that he was a young middle class man who wore rubber soled shoes,with luminous mad looking eyes, had snowy white hands with tapering fingers,was slim built and walked with a slight stoop and was about 5ft 10 inches tall but so would Charles Cutbush have known what he looked like,not only that, but on hearing such a description he probably browned his long johns
and began to panic big time.
Would he have confided in his colleagues in the Yard about this?I doubt it.Would he have started to check up on his young relative?You bet!
I think he may not have had chance to do something about him in time to prevent the murder of Mary Kelly but I would really love to know where Thomas was in the three years after her murder.If its found he was still "at large" in London ,then he wasnt the ripper.But if he was put away and let loose some two to three years afterwards......now we are talking...jobbing or not...
Natalie |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 3:17 pm: |
|
Natalie
Thanks for reply, I know I probably sounded somewhat off the track, or grasping at straws but who knows.
If Thomas was the ripper I certainly think it possible that Charles commited suicide due to the reasons I stated previously.
As for Thomas's whereabouts during this 3 yr period, again who knows, none of us yet but we are working on it(right?) I certainly feel that your comments make a lot of sense, and I know you have had lots more experience researching than I have, but I am confident this info will surface.
I must disagree only on the point that if Thomas was free in and around Whitechapel that he wasn't the ripper. The recent case that comes to mind here is the BTK killer, who resurfaced after many years, but I guess we certainly need to know more about Thomas's actual mental condition in order to form a definate conclusion.
All my best
Restless Spirit
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2097
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Hi Restless Spirit,
First of all I think you are right-Thomas can"t be ruled out just because he may have been at large in Whitechapel between the years 1888 and 1891.But the case against him becomes less convincing.
This is how I see it.
If Thomas was the Whitechapel killer its unlikely that after the murder of Mary Kelly he lay low,cut up a few pornographic pictures,wrote a number of very paranoid letters to doctors and chemists about poison and then got bored and went on a "jobbing" spree.
After all, the reason the victims are called the "canonical five "is partly to do with the belief
that the killer stopped after Mary Kelly.And the commonly held view is that he died,after the Kelly murder or was imprisoned or placed in an Asylum.
Well Thomas may well have been in an asylum of some kind but we dont know that at present.I think its necessary we find out.
BTW AP Wolf is THE expert on Thomas Cutbush-par excellence!I mainly know about Thomas through the work of AP.
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
You are making me blush again, Natalie.
Right along the line I always hoped to encourage a new generation of good people to take another look at Thomas; and your good self, Robert and many others are doing that very thing.
This is very satisfying to an old windbag tired of its own isolation.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4581
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Just a reminder that AP's book can be read free on this site at http://casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/jackmyth.fulltext1.html
To slightly alter a line from "The Prisoner" : "AP is the original, we are the economy pack."
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2098
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Thats correct Robert,and there is nothing old or tired about anything that AP writes.On the contrary its full of wit ,colour and light!
Natalie |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
Hi again Natalie,
You must be getting tired of me by now, but your views on Thomas and uncle Chas blend in with mine for sure.
I have tried to get my hands on Jack the Myth since I don't have it surprisingly, I may have passed on it because of the Title, thinking the author was dismissing the fact that Jack did exist. I have 3 online book stores searching for me currently, I am very enthused about this book for obvious reasons. Obviously you can't judge a book by it's cover and or it's name, ha ha.
I will read the reviews on Casebook, that will surfice for a while. I am back logged now on my reading, I've been so busy with my work on a geneology web that I contribute to whenever I can.
I would agree that the case against Thomas would be more solid if it can be proven where he was during this period of time.
Thank you Natalie for taking the time to respond to my posts even though they may be right off the wall at times.
regards
Restless Spirit
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
I picked up this little snip from October 29th 1891 which makes me think that perhaps we might never find out what happened to Thomas in those two years:
'The court was occupied in hearing the cases the circumstances of which were unsuitable for publication.'
We may have to wait for the Old Bailey - for this is the court referred to - to update their present web-site to include this time period. |
AJP What to think
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Great Natalie and AP, and a great read these messages boards, I've been reading all of you guys for months, read the pros and cons, thought about the question for months now...and...I have three major suspects that I think deserve greater investigation, I'm not declaring anyone to be the Ripper, but my favourite, at the top of the list is now Thomas Cutbush and it has been for awhile. It flows to near perfection, but it does merit further explanation as there are still holes, like all suspects, in his case. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Hi Natalie & Robert.
I'm sorry to spoil the party, because I love a good party. You all hold A.P. in such reverence, and quite rightly so. It's obviously for the endearing character as much as any book.
But I think that if there had been anything to suggest that Cutbush was a serious suspect, and worthy of further investigation, then the doyen of all Ripper researchers, Philip Sugden, would have found it.
Instead, he wrote off Cutbush after a thorough examination, and as he rescued us from all the errors & fictioneering in the numerous books that have been written on this subject, I'll trust his judgment on this one.
Sorry A.P., but I still love you like everyone else here does.
Best wishes all.
DAVID C. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
