|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 53
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 1:42 pm: |       |
Why isn't Cutbash listed under the casebook 'suspects' section?
crix0r |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 1:52 pm: | |
Not enough Moxie.  |
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 54
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 1:56 pm: | |
hahahah.. Perhaps.
crix0r |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 493
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 8:52 am: | |
Stand up AP !!
Monty
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:14 am: | |
Cutbush was high on tea. Tee hee.  |
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 16
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 4:28 pm: | |
Jason,
Cutbush is not considered a viable suspect because MacNaghten's 1894 memorandum wholly dismisses him, the entire purpose for the writing of that memorandum. Since many errors occur within MacNaghten's memorandum, including interesting variations between the official copy and MacNaghten's private notes, Cutbush should be viewed as a real suspect.
Cutbush's crimes, however, differ from those of 'JTR', and there has been no real motive established to link Cutbush to the murders. AP Wolf suggested Cutbush in 1993 but to my knowledge has not advanced the case against Cutbush, offering an unsubstantiated motive that Eddowes was murdered because she knew Cutbush was 'JTR'. While an interesting theory, there are too many logistical factors working against this line of reasoning.
STAN |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1539
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 5:09 pm: | |
Hi Stan, everyone
I think Cutbush is quite a good suspect. But I don't go along with AP on the reason for Eddowes's murder. Bob Hinton also has a similar argument in his theory, though I can't see why he needs it.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 1:39 pm: | |
Well, the Indian Ocean wasn't as lively as this.
I don't think I ever linked Eddowes and Thomas Cutbush in the manner ascribed, although I have always held the belief that Eddowes did perhaps have some kind of relationship - probably carnal - with Superintendent Cutbush, late of Scotland Yard. I think I tend to a connexion of that nature.
Tom-Tom is a good suspect.
He was mad.
It helps. |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 91
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 2:19 pm: | |
Hi AP Welcome back!Now thats one I cant go along with---Kate Eddowes having a fling with Charlie Cutbush.I cant imagine his "animus" craving her "anima" at all!
Natalie |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 481
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hi Natalie and AP
Aye maybe it was Charlie Cutbush who made Kate Eddowes impersonate a fire engine??? 
Chris |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 5:30 pm: | |
Whatho all,
I get my lady to impersonate public service vehicles in the bedroom quite often but that's just one of my little ways.
Cheers, Mark (who's going to be the tram tonight?) |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 482
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 8:54 am: | |
Hi, Mark
Anything that rings your bells, old chap! 
Chris  |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 11:54 am: | |
Hi Mark,
And I thought your thing would be the Tube! 
I now see my hubby’s penchant for playing trains in a different light. When he talked about red lights, transports of delight and a tender behind, I evidently missed the point – a points failure if you will.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 1:28 pm: | |
Strangely enough I do feel that Eddowes was attempting to put out a fire that day in Aldgate High Street, she certainly got burnt.
I'm still dubious about the hour of her release from the police station and did mean to ask what the normal police procedure would have been back then in the LVP in such cases. Certainly today anyone who is in an intoxicated condition would remain in the cells overnight and then either be charged or released the next morning when sober.
I also believe that it was highly unusual - even then in the LVP - to arrest someone for drunken behaviour and then release them without charge at such an hour. Depending on how much Eddowes had drunk - and by all accounts it appears to have been several bucketfulls - it would be entirely possible for her to have been still intoxicated at the hour of her release.
I still smell some of Joe's stale old cod here.
|
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 97
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 2:56 pm: | |
AP this is something I have often wondered about.Everybody knew how dangerous it still was
for any woman to be walking around Whitechapel alone.Yet they decided to release a still intoxicated woman at 1.02 am[she had only been in the police station since 8.45 pm and at that time she couldnt even walk unaided-she was paralytic].
On whose suggestion was she released?
John Kelly her commonlaw husband had been told by a friend that she had been taken and locked up----
"he did not make inquiries about her feeling sure
SHE WOULD RETURN ON SUNDAY MORNING-------".
There is also the big mystery of her whereabouts
when she was supposed to be making her way to Bermondsey to see her daughter and try to get some money for herself and John since they hadnt twopence between them.Nobody seems to have ever found out where she was between 2pm and 8.oopm
but she got dead drunk so she must have got money from someone and it definitely wasnt her daughter.
Natalie
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 805
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 4:45 pm: | |
Hi AP, Natalie,
Regarding Eddowes' release from the police station at the night of the murder, there was some discussion about that detail on the Eddowes thread some months ago, where I was decapitated in public by some individuals for having the guts to claim that Eddowes was an occasional prostitute.
I think that particular detail concerned her way of life and the nature of her relationship to John Kelly. I don't think noone really came up with a plausible explanation to where she got the drinking money from and why she -- in the middle of the night, after her release -- went to Mitre Square instead of heading directly back home.
However, about the early release, I vaguely remember that someone (Shannon Christopher or Bob Hinton, or both -- sorry guys, if I am mistaken here) mentioned that it was standard procedure to release drunken prisoners as soon as they were sober enough. I can't verify if that is true or not, but it is certainly a possibility. If the police had known her real name and about her earlier charge, I don't think she would have gotten away that easily, though. Unfortunately for her, she did.
"Nobody seems to have ever found out where she was between 2pm and 8.oopm but she got dead drunk so she must have got money from someone and it definitely wasn't her daughter."
Exactly, Natalie. My line of thinking as well. How did she get the money and from whom? Or did she have money left (for pawning Kelly's boots) after the breakfast they spent it on?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 17, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1583
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 5:47 pm: | |
Hi
I once spent some time in BPS myself. No, I hadn't done anything wrong - I was on the 1881 census. As far as I can remember, there weren't any prisoners but there were lots of policemen.
Is it possible that the police released all but the most serious drunks because they themselves needed the cells for accommodation?
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 99
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:01 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,Thanks for your post-thoughtful as always.I dont know whether Kate or was not what is recorded is that she tried to earn money selling things and also tried to get money from hoppicking so I should think she tried to avoid
prostitution as a main means of living.She has always struck me as quite a character and I like to think that she was quite a free spirit for those days-though its a bit obvious that she has an alcohol problem like the other women appear to have had.Dickens would have loved her ---fatherless child[I think that phrase is one of Norman Mailers about some famous female addict].
Anyway for what its worth;
Sargeant Byfield discharged her andConstable George Henry Hutt968 was her gaoler.
Best Natalie. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:02 pm: | |
Thanks Nathalie and Glen for your thoughts.
Sorry to have missed your public decapitation Glen, that must have been fun. Personally I wouldn’t worry about it, for I assume your decapitators never took into account that many women can be and are ’occasional’ prostitutes. Much more widespread than many would normally allow.
Needs must.
I was actually concerned with police procedure, regarding the release of Eddowes at that time in the morning, and not morals. Having just returned from an island still dominated by the urgent need of the LVP’s colonial emperors to do everything by chitty and form - exactly formulated in this time of the English police force’s true establishment - then I do believe the police forces of that time would have had even stricter codes and control than the present police force, and that is why I view the release of Eddowes at that time as crucial.
There would have been a form and chitty to fill out before such an event could be sanctioned by mere mortals, and I do wonder who the immortals were in this particular case.
I find it relevant that Eddowes was thrown out of her cell at this time in the early morning and would say it was remarkably unusual.
I don’t believe it would have been a decision taken at a local police level, in fact - given the slavish adherence to form and chitty in that exact period - I find it impossible to believe that.
For my pains and possible decapitation I believe that decision was taken at a much higher level.
|
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 100
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:07 pm: | |
Was this wishful thinking Robert?[1881?]Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 101
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:10 pm: | |
I think I am with you on this AP Best Natalie. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:21 pm: | |
Hi, A.P.
I think this answers your question about police procedure--at least this is what one of the jurymen said at the inquest:
It was left to the discretion of the inspector, or acting inspector, to decide when a person who had been drunk was in a fit condition to be discharged.
It might be that the jail was just full on a Saturday night--from the time he came on duty, Hutt was making rounds every thirty minutes to see who was sober so they could make room for new arrivals--if a record of arrests for Bisopsgate station that night still exists, the question could be answered.
Although it's reasonable to think Kate might still have had a "buzz" on after apparently drinking quite a lot, Hutt described her as sober, and she was in a fit enough state to inquire the time and consider the consequences of her binging (her "hiding"). That's something I never do while experiencing a raging drunk--not that I rage when I drink.
Best,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on December 17, 2003) |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 608
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 2:03 pm: | |
Thanks for that Dave.
I know it is difficult for us to now imagine what circumstances actually applied in the LVP, but I still think there would have been rules and regulations; and the Victorians lived by the chit as is evidenced by the slavish adherence to this form of rule in India even today... which they did learn from the English forces of law and order at this exact time period in history.
Maybe I am seeing shadows here because it suits my purpose, but over a hundred years later I do know that this would not happen in a modern police station, the person concerned could not be legally charged or released until six the next morning at the earliest; and I still maintain that police formula was probably stricter then than now.
Unlike you I do rage when I drink, as some of you may have noticed. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 10:42 am: | |
Just a smallish comment. For those resistant to the possibility of two similar attackers in the same area at the same time1, we have the odd case of Cutbush and Collocitt. Both men evidently 'jobbing' women in the same area (I mean that anatomically as well as geographically) within the span of two or three months. A unity of time, place, and action, if you will.
Interestingly enough, Cutbush attempted to implicate Collocitt. He did this in such a manner as to indicate that he had been following the story in the papers. "I could not commit the offence I am charged with. I read of a man in the newspapers stabbing girls at Clapham about five weeks back, and he is the man you want."
Meanwhile, Collocitt's defense team jumped at the opportunity afforded by Cutbush's strange crime spree. The Times, reporting Collocitt's sentencing, wrote the following: "Mr. Lowe, who appeared for the prisoner, referred to a case, now being investigated, in which another person was charged with the commission of exactly similar offences in the same neighborhood: and in view of the fact that the defence of the prisoner at his trial was that a mistake had been made as to his identity, he asked the Court to postpone sentence until the result of those proceedings was known. Mr. Somes accordingly granted a further postponement." But certainly this was not a common sort of crime? Remarkable. Cutbush blames Colocitt. Colocitt's solitcitors blame Cutbush.
1 Or dissimilar attackers, some might argue. |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 111
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 11:02 am: | |
Hi RJ I must say this is what I have been toying with recently ie the idea that since we know that there were several murderous guys living or working very close indeed to each other and the murder sites[Cutbush Chapman-another proven serial killer at that as well as the dangerously violent David Cohen and the possibly dangerous prime suspect Kosminski[pre the asylum] isnt it possible that several people had a go? I mean there were reports of the murders,there were gruesome wax works as well as word of mouth to be firing up such characters to "have a go" maybe this is why we have differing descriptions-because there was more than one at work.Maybe Hutchinson was involved too-although I"ve often wondered if this man was after the reward.
Best Natalie. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 1:49 pm: | |
RJ
thanks for turning that information up. I hadn't seen that before, but as I've stressed I've been out of the game for a long time now, and the only research I do these days is into the restorative powers of strong brandy or rum.
Cutbush and Colicitt are certainly interesting, and do deserve much more air-play than they presently receive, for one does wonder what it is that prompts two young men to go out and start 'jobbing' young ladies in the rear in the same time slice of history.
What say you then to the differing sentences they received for the same offences?
Cutbush got life and Colicitt got a £200 fine.
The quote you used from Cutbush was music to my ears. Pure Cutbush. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 11:18 am: | |
AP--The disparity in sentencing is indeed interesting. The £200 fine seems to have been security against Colicitt (or Colocitt as the 'Times' would have it) being kept under the supervision of an attendant. He was described as 'weak minded' as the result of 'a fall he had as a baby.' "Edwin Colocitt, 26, was brought up to receive sentence, having been convicted at the February Session of maliciously wounding Maude Kerton and several other young women by stabbing them with some sharp instrument. * * *After a consultation between counsel, Mr. Somes bound the prisoner over to come up for judgement when called upon. He accepted the father's and uncle's sureties each in £100, with a proviso that a competent attendant should be engaged, who would be responsible for prisoner's safe conduct. The father also engaged to exercise such care and supervision over the prisoner as to protect the public from the possibility of any repetition of the offence." (Times, 21 March, 1891) In other words, he was released back to the family's care. In Cutbush's case, young Thomas was evidently deemed a more dangerous customer, and they indeed threw the book at him. One wonders if Colicitt's council was sucessful in raising doubt as to whether Cutbush might have been guilty for some of the stabbings attributed to their client? Postponing the sentencing until the details of Cutbush's crimes were available seems like odd stuff. It's also interesting that Cutbush's insanity is attributed to "excessive study." A fanatic of some sort, maybe? Or just a poet? |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 617
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 7:14 am: | |
Thanks again RJ
I enjoy these little snippets of information, and like you I do feel that both Cutbush and Colicitt are worthy of far more investigation.
I still feel that the disparity of sentencing was somehow linked to the fact that one of the defendants just happened to have a close relation of senior rank in the investigating force, and this was the motivating factor behind the speed and restrictive nature of one trial as opposed to the long-winded affair of the other.
I believe the ‘excessive study’ refers to Thomas’ addiction to illustrated medical reference books and his self-made pornography designed from them.
Any more information would be enormously appreciated.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:32 pm: | |
AP--Hi. Acually, I have sudden hankerin' for joining the ranks of those who have vanished. If it's all the same, I'll just email the further particulars on our Mr. Cutbush in a day or two.
Thanks for the conversation, RP |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 4:46 am: | |
Reproduced below are the two reports in the ‘London Times’ concerning Thomas Cutbush (courtesy of Roger Palmer) which I thought might be of some interest to the posters on this thread.
What I find interesting is the fact that Thomas was unable to work in the two years prior to these offences - as attested to by his aunt - due to some sort of problems brought about by ‘excessive study’, for we already know that Thomas stopped work in 1888 due to similar problems when he believed he had contracted syphilis. So it appears that his family was willing to support him through three long years of his strange ‘problems’. One wonders what the devil he was up to between 1888 and 1891, and my guess is that he was probably institutionalised.
Also interesting and perhaps revealing is the fact that despite his obvious lunacy he was able to give a very plausible and rational defence to the charges against him - as quoted here - and the defence implies that young Thomas - despite his problems - studied his newspapers and was aware of events outside his narrow world.
I must dwell on this, but I do believe it all adds to the interest in Thomas as a valid suspect.
As Roger points out the name ‘James’ in the first report is exactly how the Times reported his name, it is corrected in the second report.
24 MARCH 1891
“At LAMBETH, James Cutbush, 27, clerk, was charged on remand, before Mr. Hopkins, with feloniously cutting and wounding Florence Grace Johnson with intent to do grieveous bodily harm. He was also charged with attempting to wound Isabel Fraser Anderson. Mr. Angus Lewis prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury, and Mr. G. Kirk defended the prisoner. Mr. Lews having briefly opened the case, called Isabel Fraser Anderson, who stated that she was 18 years of age, and lived in White Hart-street, Kennington. On the 7th inst., whilst walking with a female friend in Kennington-road, she suddenly felt a pull at her dresss behind and then a sound as if her dress was being torn. She looked round, and saw a man, who immediately ran away. She did not see the man’s face, but he was in appearance like the prisoner. She thought the man had a knife in his right hand. She complained to a gentleman who was walking just in front. She afterwards found that her dress was cut at the lower part of the back as if by some sharp instrument. Clara Hoyne, aunt of the prisoner, said he had lived with her for a long time. In consequence of his condition application had been made to the parish authorities and the prisoner was removed to Newington Infirmary. From there he escaped and was afterwards taken to Peckham-house Lunatic Asylum. Witness afterwards found a sheath knife in the pocket of the prisoner’s overcoat. The knife was produced in Court and appeared to be almost new. The blade was about 6in. long with a very sharp curved point. The witness informed the Court that for two years the prisoner had been unable to do wrk. The condition of his mind had been brought about through excessive study. Inspector Race, L Division, said he was present with Chief Inspector Chisholm when the prisoner was arrested. Whilst in the waiting-room of the Court the prisoner said, “I could not commit the offence I am charged with. I read of a man in the newspapers stabbing girls at Clapham about five weeks back, and he is the man you want.” The evidence of another young lady who had been stabbed by the prisoner having been taken, Mr. Hopkins said the prisoner would be committed to take his trial at the next Sessions.”
15 APRIL 1891
“THOMAS CUTBUSH, 27, described as a clerk, was indicted for having stabbed two young women, in the neighbourhood of Kennington. Mr. de Michele appeared for the prosecution on behalf of the Treasury; Mr. Robert Wallace (with Mr. Fillman) for the defendant. In this case, the facts of which have already been reported, the jury was sworn to try whether the prisoner was sufficiently sound mind to plead to the indictment. Dr. Gilbert, of Holloway Gaol, said he had him under his observation while he had been in custody, and believed him to be insane. In his opinion the prisoner was not able to understand the nature and character of the charge brought against him. The jury found that the prisoner was insane, and not capable of pleading, and the usual order was made for his detention during her Majesty’s pleasure.” ______________
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 10:07 am: | |
All this is very interesting!
I believe there may be an echo of Cutbush in Edwin Woodhall's story, about the black-faced insane man who is captured, escapes and ends up in the Thames. It seems to be an amalgamation of the Dr Holt, Cutbush and Druitt stories.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 1:38 pm: | |
Thanks Robert
You may well be right, that different legends have been wrapped up here in a single story.
But another thing that has struck me as I’ve read through the cuttings a few more times is how we seem to have a fairly lucid and rational Thomas Cutbush in the first report, exercising some form of control over his supposed ‘lunacy’, as is evident from his statement to the police officers, which is, after all, a quite valid defence to the criminal charges he faces, for he claims quite rightfully that it could be a simple case of mistaken identity.
Then in the second press report we are led to believe that Thomas has degenerated so much that he is no longer capable of recognising his surroundings or the circumstances of his arrest or guilt - when he patently did in the first press report. This is compounded by the evidence of a single doctor who vows for the young man’s lunacy and as a consequence Thomas is sent to Broadmoor for the rest of his life.
This in turn develops several scenarios.
Thomas was ‘fitted-up’ with the crimes to get this obviously dangerous young man off the streets for good.
Thomas’ lunacy was an up and down affair with moments of normal lucidity, moments of complete and utter madness and then a complete catatonia.
Thomas could not take isolation, he was a month in remand and this may have caused his condition evident in the second press report.
Whatever, the sudden decline is noteworthy and remarkable. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1651
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 2:17 pm: | |
Hi AP
According to the Woodhall story (I don't have the book, but am using a re-telling of the story in "The Ripper Legacy") the man did have a dual personality, in that he could quickly change from a violent animal to a mild, polite human being.
Of course, as I'm sure you've already pointed out, someone who obsessively studies medical books can easily be transformed into a medical student.
Robert
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2515
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 5:44 pm: | |
This case was exactly contemporaneous with the Colocott abd Cutbush cases :
THE TIMES
FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 1891
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, March 12.
(before MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS)
ALFRED JAMES BARTLETT, 49, wheelwright, was indicted for the willful murder of Rosina Bartlett.
Mr. C. Mathews and Mr. C.F. Gill prosecuted ; Mr. Geoghegan appeared for the defence.
Mr. MATHEWS, in opening the case, said the charge against the prisoner was that he, on the 18th of February, caused his child’s death by suffocation. The circumstances of the case were very painful. Probably the conclusion the jury would come to was that the prisoner at the time he was alleged to have committed the act was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of it. The prisoner was a most respectable man, and had been for many years in the same service. He was a hardworking, sober, and industrious man. Some ten years ago the prisoner in the course of his employment had a fall on his head, and from that time it had been noticed that he was not the same. In 1890 this condition seemed to have increased, and the prisoner was frequently subject to epileptic fits. Unquestionably on the 18th of February in this year the prisoner’s mind had given way. He was absent from his work in consequence of illness from the 15th of December to the 13th of February. He returned to work on the 13th of February and worked down to the 18th of February. On the afternoon of that day he was at home. The prisoner lived at Hounslow, and on that evening he went to bed as early as 7 o’clock. His wife left the house on some domestic errand, and when she returned a short time afterwards she saw him downstairs. The prisoner said something to her, and she went upstairs and saw the dead body of the child. She went for the police. A policeman went to the house and saw the prisoner standing in front of the fire in the kitchen. His wife said to the policeman in the prisoner’s presence that she had been out on an errand, and when she came back the prisoner had killed the baby. The policeman said to the prisoner, "You hear what your wife says." The prisoner replied, "Yes, that is all right. I did it." A police-inspector came and told the prisoner that he must charge him with the wilful murder of his child Rosina Bartlett. The prisoner said, "Yes, I did it with a brace. I put the brace in a small stand at the foot of the bed." The inspector went to the foot of the bed, and found in a small stand the end of a broken brace. There were two marks on the child’s neck.
Witnesses were then called on the part of the prosecution. The medical evidence was to the effect that the cause of the child’s death was the application of some suffocating agent to the face of the child – by a hand or a cloth or a pillow being placed over the mouth. The brace applied round the mouth of the child would have caused the death. If there had been strangulation suffocation had been superadded to it. The actual cause of death was suffocation. It was elicited in cross-examination that the only things inconsistent with natural death were the two little marks on the neck. Evidence was also given that the prisoner was not of sound mind.
Mr. MATHEWS, in summing up the evidence for the prosecution, asked the jury to come to the conclusion that the prisoner was not responsible for his actions.
Mr. GEOGHEGAN addressed the jury for the defence and submitted that it had not been proved that the prisoner caused the child’s death. The theory that the death was caused by the brace was put out of court by the medical evidence. Before the jury considered the condition of the prisoner’s mind they had to consider whether he caused the death. If the jury had a reasonable doubt as to whether the prisoner caused the child’s death they must return a verdict of not guilty.
Witnesses were called to speak to the excellent character borne by the prisoner.
MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS having summed up,
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of doing the act, but said they did not think he was responsible for his actions.
MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS. – I will make the usual order for his detention until her Majesty’s pleasure be known. His Lordship added that he was not at all sure that "her Majesty’s pleasure" meant that a man would be detained as a criminal lunatic for an indefinite time. He was not aware whether it was permissible for private individuals who gave security to take care of a man to make an appeal to the Home Secretary.
Mr. GEOGHEGAN said that if the prisoner had been acquitted an application would have been made for him to be sent to a lunatic asylum, but not a criminal lunatic asylum.
MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS said he should be delighted if a man who bore such a good character as the prisoner did, and who did the act under a very dire affliction, could be taken care of in some asylum other than a criminal lunatic asylum.
Robert
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 11:23 pm: | |
The Mr. Geoghegan was Gerald Geoghegan, the junior barrister for the defense in Israel Lipski's Case (1887), the man who argued for Frederick Deeming in front of the Privy Council in 1892, and the man who defended Dr. Thomas Neill Cream in 1892.
Mr. Mathews was Mr. (later Sir) Charles Mathews who would be the prosecutor of Robert Wood in the Camden Town murder trial of 1907, and later the Director of Criminal Prosecution in the nineteen teens. On another thread on this web, Mathews was one of the people who attended a dinner for Lord Justice Sir John Coleridge that Montague Druitt attended in 1887.
Mr. Justice Hawkins was Sir Henry "'Anging 'Awkins" Hawkins, Baron Brampton, who was the leading criminal judge of the late 19th Century. His first trial was the trial of the Stauntons (1877) for the starvation murder of Harriet Staunton. He was the judge in the trial of Dr. George Henry Lamson in 1881 for the poison murder of his brother-in-law Percy John, and of Dr. Cream for the murder of Mathilda Clover in 1892, and of Albert Milson and Henry Fowler in 1896 for the murder of Mr. Henry Smith at Muswell Hill.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2516
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 3:42 am: | |
Thanks for that info, Jeff.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
Interesting example Robert.
Patently, Thomas Cutbush was not responsible for his actions either but no such procrastination was forthcoming in his own trial for a far lesser criminal offence… from either counsel or judge.
In fact I do feel from a reading of proceedings that young Thomas was denied the usual slow-tempo of a criminal trial, and things were all rather fast-tracked to secure a conviction that would lead to a life sentence.
I think I have mentioned to you before that what I find particularly disturbing in the Cutbush/Colicitt trials is that Colicitt’s family were able to secure the young man’s release on a small surety combined with assurances about his care, but in Thomas’ case no such surety or assurance was offered by his family… which does lead me to the conclusion that his own family had given up the ghost with him.
Whether we like it or not, a simple appearance in court on that day by his uncle, Executive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush of Scotland Yard - recently praised in the Times for his contribution to the Metropolitan Police Force of London and awarded a handsome pile of gold coins for his efforts - would have secured young Thomas’ release with immediate effect.
Perhaps it is the realization that Thomas Cutbush’s immediate and highly influential and wealthy family were willing to allow him to be sentenced to life imprisonment - when they could have had him released on surety - that is the most prominent indicator yet that young Thomas was indeed Jack the Ripper.
Without a shadow of a doubt Thomas had done something out of all proportion to his actual criminal charges, and he was duly sentenced for this rather than the wounding charges, and I suspect his own family were compliant in this regard.
Sorry I haven’t been around much, Robert, I’m doing 14 hours a day at the moment and have so little time for the things I like doing.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2519
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 5:39 pm: | |
Hi AP
Yes, the fact that they just threw him away does suggest that they'd reached the end with him. I haven't found in the "Times" any of those telltale small acts you said he would have been committing prior to 1888 - but that would be something best searched for in the local newspapers.
As for his state of mind in 1888, I would very much like to know when Mr Petrolei appeared on the scene. If I remember correctly, he was lodging with them in 1891 and actually followed them to their new address some time between 1891 and 1901. If there was a relationship between him and Kate, young Tom may have taken a dim view of all things female.
14 hours, AP? No one can drink SSB for 14 hours!
Robert
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
The problem, Robert, with the ‘small acts of despair’ is that they often go unreported on an official basis… on my own island a chap was recently sentenced to twelve years for a criminal offence which appeared at first to be without any previous criminal background, but a closer examination revealed that he had spent the last twenty years appearing before the local parish officers for similar but lesser offences… the problem being that parish records were not recorded by the state officers; and I do suspect that the archaic legal system of my island does reflect that of England in the LVP.
So you may have to reduce your search to a ‘parish’ level.
Good luck!
I like this Petrolei fellow… he smells like gasolinas being thrown on a fire to me, and I would love to know more about him.
As I’ve said before, I do believe a complicated human relationship - probably carnal and illegal - is the root cause for the rot in the Cutbush family tree.
Ah, Robert, how I wish I could drink SSB for 14 hours… unfortunately at this time of year other interests of mine keep me actually working for that time period and I have a mere hour or so to quaff SSB and chat here.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2524
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
AP, young Tom is almost as slippery as his dad!
I was hoping to find a "Times" report of Uncle Charles's inquest, but so far not a sausage.
I did find some stuff about Lord Grimthorpe, also a court case involving Peckham House Lunatic Asylum, which I'll try to paste onto the Boards if I can get the better of this recalcitrant machine.
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
