|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 10:59 am: |       |
The Seaside Home.
"The Police Seaside Home at Hove was established in 1890 by the late Catherine Gurney, OBE, (President of the International Christian Police Association), with the assistance of a Miss Griffin, for the benefit of police officers of all ranks who required rest and a change of air after sickness or injury.
The police of Derbyshire supported both the St Andrew Police Convalescent Home at Harrogate and the Hove Convalescent Home." (from the Derbyshire Constabulary site)
A photograph and brief biographical sketch of Miss Gurney can be found at the link below:
http://members.aol.com/cpauk/cpahist.htm
It is important to realize that the Christian reformer Catherine Gurney and Sir Robert Anderson were friends and associates. She is mentioned in the biography of Sir Robert, "Sir Robert Anderson and Lady Agnes Anderson by Anderson's son, A.P. Moore-Anderson. See Chapter IV. "Scotland Yard.":
"The last incident suggests a reference to the many meetings addressed in connection with the Christian Police Association;
Miss Catherine Gurney, its founder, wrote after my father’s death: "I shall always remember the very many kindnesses and encouraging words and all the kind help he gave us in the early part of our work." At a convention of the Association in Bolton the diary notes that he spoke on police duty being in the line of God’s government of the world (Romans xiii). "
There seems to be no solid historical reason for doubting that the Seaside Home mentioned in the Swanson marginalia is the one at Hove, founded by Anderson's friend Miss Gurney, and run by Miss Griffen.
About 4 years ago, a chap named Ron Taylor posted the 1891 Census information for the Seaside Home at Hove on this site. Due to the poor quality of the microfische, there was some difficulty with his transcription, and what appeared to be a few errors in regards to names. I'll re-post it below.
Police Convalescent Home
51 Clarendon Villas
Country: Sussex
Civil District: Hove
Ecc District: Brighton
Mary M.P. Griffen Head, Lives by Own Means, 33, Born Portsea, Hampshire
Fanny March, Widow ,57, Born Ssx Biddlecombe
James H. Archer, Visitor, Scholar, 10, Born Brighton
James H. Cousens, Visitor, Scholar, 6, Born Leic
Letitice Roper, Servant , 41, Weeks Ryde Isle of Wight
Eliza Inman, Servant, 14, London, Bow
James M. Hay, Boarder, 42, Police Inspector, Kent
Henry R. Hatch, Boarder, 47, Police Constable, Mdx Southall
Frederic Child, Boarder, Police Constable, 20 (?), Bucks, Beaconsfield
Fanny March, Visitor Scholar, 10, Ssx, Brighton
The standard proposed date of the identification of Aaron Kosminski is in the Summer of 1890, and the Census was taken slightly less than a year later. Pending further discoveries, this is probably the only peep we have into the make-up of the Home.
An interesting side-note discovered by Mr. Taylor is the fact that Inspector James Hay, Kent, is listed in the 1881 Census as a Police Constable living in Whitechapel. I don't know PC Henry Hatch's whereabouts in 1881.
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 2:03 pm: | |
Thank you for that RJ.
I have an abiding interest in this strange place, and have done a little research myself - but being retired only marginal stuff - and discovered recently that I could have bought the place for about £150,000. I resisted the temptation. Somehow I do wish that I had now.
This is fascinating stuff, especially your remarks about Inspector James Hay of Kent having served in Whitechapel as a constable, for the Cutbush and Haynes families also had their origins in Kent, and I would have thought that senior serving officers in the Met with origins down that southern way would have been ideal candidates for the Seaside Home when they needed a spot of recuperation, especially when they started waving their pistols about and threatening to shoot Catholics.
As you probably are aware I dispute the identification of the suspect who was dragged down to Hove as I feel the minimum requirement for this suspect - whoever he was - is that he must be related to a senior serving police officer of the Met force who was himself in situ at the time.
It beggars belief to assume that this suspect was dragged all the way down to Hove for identification at the Police Seaside Home when that suspect had no connection to the Police Seaside Home. In other words he must have been identified by a policeman at the Police Seaside Home - taking the sea air after some strain - and that seems to imply that the suspect must have been related to a policeman.
Whatever, it is wonderful to see some sort of factual reference to events.
You have my thanks. |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | |
I wonder if anyone can answer a question I've wondered about from time to time - would a stay at the Seaside Home be noted on a police service record?
In a way it's rather an obvious possibility, and I'd be surprised if this hasn't been investigated for possible "police witnesses", but I wonder.
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
AP--Hi. We have this additional tid-bit from the Derbyshire people:
"Most of the costs for the Hove [Home] were met by the Ministry of Health but the police were concerned that if they were not allowed to contribute then non-police personnel would be sent for care."
It seems safe to say that the clientele were exclusively policemen.
Did you have a chance to stroll around the place? The current listing for 51 Clarendon Villas is a group of flats. Only three patients listed in the census. A small place, then? I noticed that one of Dr. Barnardo's Homes was very nearby, just up the street--another one of Anderson's chums. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on November 14, 2003) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 1:13 pm: | |
Hi all
I suppose the records no longer survive?
Robert |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 1:32 pm: | |
Thanks again RJ
stuff like this is so important.
I didn't actually go to the place, I found it for sale as a lot of three on a local estate agent's web site. I wish now I had downloaded the photos as they were very good.
Perhaps it is still on offer. Just put Clarendon Villas, Hove, into the search engine, that's how I found it. I believe part of it is now one of those new age churches.
Robert, I wish, I wish and wish again. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 5:11 am: | |
Does anyone know whether the Home was still running in 1901? The road seems to have been re-numbered - there are only even numbers, except for number 61.
I'm puzzled that children are mentioned as staying there in 1891. I would have thought the last thing a recuperating patient would need, is children running around.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 712
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 9:32 am: | |
Hi RJ
Im attaching the details which I hope is of use to complement your original posting
Regards
Chris
 |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 155
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 12:39 am: | |
Time to resurrect this fascinating thread. . .
Swanson seems to indicate that both witness and suspect were Jews--were there any Jews serving in any police agency at the time of the murders? I'm sure this has been asked before. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 5:05 am: | |
Hi Erin
I don't know. According to David Englander, a Special Branch officer serving in 1916 was "one of the few Yiddish-speaking policemen in the land", so my guess would be, not many!
It's difficult to imagine a Jewish polieman refusing to give evidence.
It's true that both Harvey and Long were dismissed from the police soon after the murders. If either of them were Jewish, and if either of them did see someone, it's possible to imagine they may have felt victimised by their dismissal and declined to help the police when later asked to identify a suspect. But as far as I know, neither Harvey nor Long were Jewish.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 354
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 6:44 am: | |
I think this place has now been divided up into flats. I typed in Clarendon Villas, Hove in the search engine and it came up with quite a few sites. I clicked on one of them and it had two one bedroom flats for sale with Clarendon Villas, Hove as the address for both.
Sarah |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 772
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 10:58 am: | |
Hi Sarah
I found the picture below of 57 Clarendon Villas, Hove on the Barnardo's site. It was a Barndo's home and gave the following info:
Syndal,
57 Clarendon Villas,
Hove,
Sussex.
Opened 1921 as a convalescent home for girls until 1939. 1940 Every Open Door.
Sold January 1952.
 |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 366
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 12:25 pm: | |
Chris,
It sounds odd saying "Opened 1921 as a convalescent home for girls until 1939". This makes it sound like that is when it was built and then opened for the first time when it was a police home long before that. I'm sure I just read it wrong.
Sarah |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 783
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 12:44 pm: | |
Sarah
this is a pic of the closest building I could find which might give some idea of what the Seaside Home looked like. The pic above is No 57, the seaside Home was No 51.
I think the comments I quoted only referred to the Barnardo's inolvement. I took it to mean they took the building over in 1921 as a convalescent home which stayed open til 1939. From 1940 it was "Every open Door" - whatever that means - and they finally sold it in 1952
Regards
Chris |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2550
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 2:16 pm: | |
Hi all
This seaside home also apparently admitted police officers :
THE TIMES
JUNE 8th 1891
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2552
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 6:05 pm: | |
The article concludes :
The Bishop of London seconded the motion, remarking that the institution had done an untold amount of good. The motion was carried unanimously. Mr.J.R. Diggle then moved the following resolution :- "That this meeting further resolves to use every effort in the various labour centres and amongst organized bodies of working men to secure by small contributions a sum sufficient to maintain the home, which has been established, managed by, and is the property of the working men of London for the benefit of the least fortunate of their fellow-workers." Mr. Rowlands, M.P., seconded the motion, which was adopted, and resolutions thanking the speakers and the Lord Mayor were afterwards passed.
Robert
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2556
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 5:14 am: | |
Here's another one, from "The Times" July 22nd 1893 :
Robert |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 243
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
I can translate the Barnardo Web Site information.
Probably donated around 1921, Number 57, was a Seaside Convalescent Home principally for sickly invalid city children drawn from, or admitted to, Barnardo Homes from all over Britain.It ceased to be that in 1939. It then became a Reception home for Boys.
The reference to "The Ever-Open-Door" (that was Dr Barnardo's logo) meant that after it ceased admitting invalid children, it acted as an establishment which was open twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, to receive new admissions usually from families in straightened circumstances, or with domestic disharmony.
( The door was "Ever Open"; Unlike some other charities at the time).
As regards the Seaside Police Home, I have seen an advertisement for cheap holidays there, running in a "Police Journal" of 1897. Of course, I have no means of knowing if it was still the Clarendon Villas one. Though I suspect the other Hove establishment mentioned immediately above, seems to have admitted working people and City of London Police only. So it probably was the original one.
I will dig out the "Police Journal" and see if it gives the precise address. Someone should check
issues before and after.
I hardly think the police would have barged in with a decidely unstable Ripper suspect, to either establishment, unless it was almost empty at the time. And guests were moved elsewhere.
Surely, any establishment relying on people's funds would have had to keep a register of occupants, how long they stayed, and how many, to ensure the public money was properly spent.
If it got plugs in the 'Police Journal'then the Higher-Ups would have had to be sure it was "kosher", (to follow A P Wolfe's very interesting theories) .
By the way, should anyone be wondering how I know about the Barnardo terminology, I spent two years of my childhood in the establishment Barnardo's acquired AFTER the Clarendon Villas one. Yes, I was a Barnardo Boy at Hove! Coincidences everywhere!
And whilst I have great respect for the work the Good Doctor, I think he would have been a very strong suspect in those parlous times. Motive!
Further, guess who sat on Dr Barnardo's first
Management Committee (to ensure HE was kosher) none other than...Sir Robert Anderson! |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 53
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 4:22 am: | |
Hi all,
Going back to AP Wolf's original comment on this thread I think he is right. There has to be a reason for the alleged meeting to take place there and given the fact that police used this as a place to rest and recuperate it certainly seems plausible that the suspect could have been brought there to be identified by a police witness. A shame we don't have records of the borders. It could certainly throw some light on which officer might have been regarded at the time as having really seem JtR. How interesting it would be to discover for example that a generally disregarded witness such as Seargent Stephen White spent time there.
Scotty. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Thanks Scotty
I am thought to be in the right about once every twenty years, so my thanks for the this one.
I might even celebrate with a bottle or two.
Common sense has always dictacted that both witness and suspect would have had some strong connection to the investigating force. As one imagines that the Metropolitan Force did not often invite suspects in mass murder investigations to take the sea air on a deck chair at Hove.
I believe that the records will be forthcoming in the due course of time; the complete and utter shame of the entire situation is that I honestly feel that there are least two researchers out there who are sitting on vital information like this, simply because they are selfish, dishonest and have a vested interest in the subject because of their previous employment. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2561
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
AP, they still felt sore about the bullet-riddled seagulls as late as Mar 11th 1930 (from "The Times")
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Here I go supposing again. Suppose that Jack actually had a run-in with a policeman and got away and the policeman was injured enough to be sent to the seaside home? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 5:02 pm: | |
Robert,
nice find. If Lord Chamberpot found the theme 'extremely undesirable' it means he must have read the script. I should like to read it also as I am willing to consider that the Met is on the edge of Jack's knife in the play.
One does hope that conference takes place in Brighton next year, for then me and thee can sit on deck chairs with Browning five shot automatics and blast passing gulls out of the air whilst congratulating ourselves, and quaffing immense amounts of SSB.
Bring your anorak. It could get messy.
Diana
it just might interest you to know that Executive Superintendant Charles Henry Cutbush of Scotland Yard upon his untimely suicide was allegedly covered from head to foot in old stab and cutting wounds. Whether it was Jack or his nephew Thomas who treated him thus is not known.
Whatever, I am still betting my last bottle of brandy on Uncle Charles being resident at the Seaside Home at exactly the time period required.
This was not for his poor physical condition, but rather to recover his parlous mental state which had degenerated alarmingly by that stage.
He thought the pope ran Scotland Yard.
Probably would have made a better job of it. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 55
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 11:31 pm: | |
AP,
You've piqued my interest there, don't suppose you're going to mention who the researchers are, we can only hope that if such evidence does exist that they can put their own beliefs and theories aside for the greater good.
Fascinating about Cutbush's cuts. The mind boggles with the possibilities. The interest in this I see is that if we could determine which policeman was present at the time of the alleged ID, and we have a description of a suspect from that officer, then we would have for the first time what could be considered a reasonably accurate description of JtR.
AP, i'm not sure of your assertion that the suspect must have had close links to the police or a particular officer. It seems to me that if an officer or retired officer were convalescing at the seaside home then to bring the witness there might be the only practical way to get an ID from that officer. I don't see that the suspect must have been linked in any other way.
Am I misreading you here?
Scotty. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
Scotty
your interest is greatly appreciated.
I'm running with second-hand information here, but it is from a person who is considered to be 'the' impeccable source of reference when it comes to the factual aspects of the crimes of JtR.
My present understanding is that the two researchers are retired Metropolitan police officers who have gained what I would term as 'unusual' access to records not yet in the public domain.
Other respected members on this site have attempted to establish lines of communication between these individuals and myself but they have refused all attempts at sensible and shared communication.
They have vested interests and may the Force be with them.
The impeccable resource also supplied the information concerning the state of Superintendent Cutbush's body at death; and the fact that there were two Cutbush's in the Met at the time, which has always caused some confusion.
Your point about the witness is well taken.
I just have this crazy notion for it to be Charles Henry Cutbush.
Please excuse that notion. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 70
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 2:45 am: | |
AP.
Again, fascinating. Your theory of Cutbush as the witness is not necessarily crazy, it could just as easily have been him as anyone else in the whole ripper story. Hopefully the truth shall out!
Scotty. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 7:35 pm: | |
Hi all,
Interesting Wolf, everytime I read about the seaside home and the identification of the ripper I think back to the starement Abberline made to the press. He never believed the ripper had been locked up or that he had died. Is it possible that there could have been a witness that Abberline did not no about or that an identifcation of the ripper could have been made with out Abberline having knowledge of the identification? He also infers that no one got a good look at the ripper and that those who alleged they saw him only saw him from the back. I have always thought the Kosminski/Cohen and I guess Cutbush theory a good one but Abberlines statement seems to be in direct contrast.
All the best,CB |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2577
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hi Scotty
If you ever find yourself looking through Australian BMD records, any chance of your having a quick look for the death of one Thomas Taylor Cutbush? I believe he was born in England in 1844, and was last heard of in Port Melbourne in 1885.
Of course, he may not have died in Australia. He may, for all I know, have died in Baffinland - and probably did.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
CB
I think we are looking at a situation where every policeman even slightly involved allowed themselves the glory of a personal insight and contact into the crimes.
Hence a powerful amount of disinformation.
It is still my honest belief that the reference to the Seaside Home came about through an actual situation which was later perverted by the wishful thinking of many of the senior officers involved. Each laid their own interpretation on a situation which they honestly did not understand, but wanted to.
The linkage I have attempted to engage between the mental demise of Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush, associated with his removal from active duties directly involved with the investigation of the crimes to a desk-bound position at the Yard, and then his eventual suicide, leading to the production of a document which for the first time mentions the Seaside Home in connection to the crimes, following the arrest and incarceration of his nephew, Thomas Hayne Cutbush, and the publication of a series of articles in the Sun newspaper at the same time naming Thomas as Jack the Ripper, does sort of persuade me to slightly think that somehow there might well be a vapid connection in all this.
But hey, what do I know? I’m just an old Ripposaur farting clouds of methane into the primitive swamps of evolution.
My money is on good old Charles being at the Seaside Home when required by history.
My fortune is on good old Charles being directly involved in the murder of Catherine Eddowes.
The scene I paint for myself is that after the crimes ceased, Charles went to Hove for some much needed sea air, meanwhile Thomas shivered in the dark cellar until he was put away privately by the family, eventually escaping to cause the mayhem we all know ensued at that time.
Then finally the Met. was forced to respond, the rest is history.
It is useful to remember that the only official police reports and documents that have come down to us though the passage of time do concentrate on Uncle Charles and Tom-Tom.
Now all I need is some red paint.
And a town.
And several bottles of brandy.
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 897
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 6:15 pm: | |
AP I have a great regard for your book,Jack the Myth and I think Thomas Cutbush could have been JtR although I am not convinced he was.I havent seriously considered his Uncle Charles as either the ripper or his accomplice but tonight you have got me thinking.He could have known she was locked in a police cell for D&D and also when she was released[ie Catherine Eddowes].He could also have known about the empty houses in Mitre Square
as could his nephew Thomas.He may have followed her and lurked about in the shadows of Mitre Square or one of its empty houses until he had the opportunity to slide up to her...or maybe Thomas did ..or both!If both men were crazy at the time it certainly makes you wonder!
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
Thanks for your kind words about the Myth, Natalie.
I'm still not convinced that Thomas Cutbush was JtR, I feel he may have been, but he didn't know he was, and neither did anyone else, but I do feel strongly that Thomas and his uncle Charles were linked to the murder of prostitutes in Whitechapel in 1888.
The researchers I mentioned earlier who allegedly have 'unusual' access to information concerning the Cutbush family face a stark choice: publish or share that information within the next two to three years, otherwise that 'unusual' access to information concerning the Cutbush family will be available to all of us at the PRO, Kew.
The first slice of the cake will be records pertaining to Thomas's arrest, confinement and death.
Second slice will be uncle Charle's post-mortem report, pension records and medical history.
Third slice is the Cutbush clan and their weird and wonderful family history... I reckon Robert and Chris will have that sorted out soon.
I think these reluctant researchers have the information but can't write the book... because I already writ it.
So they sit there, almost fifteen years out of date, and with no publisher in sight, while I crack open bottles of brandy and play scrabble.
But I'm still not saying that Thomas was JtR.
All I'm saying is that if you can fit 'Jack' into the left hand bottom corner of a scrabble board touching the double letter score with the 'J' and creasing the treble word score with the word than you have won the game. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 905
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 5:53 pm: | |
This sounds very curious AP.I wonder WHY they dont come clean one way or another?Still if we only have to wait a couple of years to find out then -carry on with the brandy and scrabble-oh and the hilarious Cutbush Saga-when you have the time!
Best Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2591
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 5:14 am: | |
Found some reports in "The Times" dealing with police matters :
JUNE 18 1890
Next article after a cuppa and a fag.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2592
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
JUNE 19 1890
Sorry it's posted a bit untidily, but I hate this mouse with every fibre of my being.
The abrupt ending was in the original.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2593
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 7:41 am: | |
Finally JUNE 23 1890 :
Robert |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 246
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 7:43 am: | |
R.J. Palmer, A.P. Wolf et al,
I have finally found that "in house" police staff journal which mentioned the Police Seaside Home.
The publication was the POLICE REVIEW which seems to have been run for ordinary policemen and not out of Scotland Yard.
The date of the item quoted is 23rd December 1897:-
"POLICE SEASIDE HOME, HOVE, BRIGHTON. A Home away from Home, for Policemen all ranks and from any Police Force. Every comfort. Sick Leave 8s. per week. Annual Leave 12s. Railway ticket from London 5s. return, one month. Apply, Miss Griffin, Hon. Lady Superintendent. Stamped envelope for reply.".
Now, reading this in conjunction with R.J's first post in the thread above, we can see the mention of Miss Griffin in that posting. So, doubtless, this is the same Police Seaside Home at Hove.
I can also see something important in that article, posted by Robert, reporting on Mr Munro's involvement in negotiations with the Home Secretary for better working conditions for policemen. If pensions were calculated on days worked and qualified by periods spent recuperating
then surely, these could have been verified by reference to records of time spent at the Seaside Home, and the reports of doctors connected therewith.
Therefore, somewhere, there must have existed records to do with the convalescent and holiday home.
Perhaps A.P. might like to get his sleuths on to the POLICE REVIEW and the official Police Gazette
for references to "Get Well soon" messages or announcements of Senior officers absent on leave.
In the meantime I am contacting Barnardos in London to discover if they have any other photographs of the front of 57 Clarendon Villas. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 1:55 pm: | |
Yes, John, I do believe Robert has found a fine kettle of fish here, and I congratulate him on that.
But not only to the linkage that might be possible in tying together sick leave of officers in the Met - that concern us, like Cutbush - to possible stays at the Hove Seaside Home.
What I'm also thinking is that our Executive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush may well have had a highly vested interest in all these negotiations concerning pensions, sick leave and medical benefits - as highlighted in the Times - simply because of his own parlous medical condition, physical and mental, which must have meant long spells off duty - hopefully at the Seaside Home in Hove - and I'm also wondering about the negative effects of his nephew's actions on his career within the Met, especially if his medical reports - which I believe form part of his pension records - showed signs of dangerous self-harm or masochistic behaviour.
Any of these factors may well have had serious implication on his rights to a pension, and this might well be the central reason for his sudden and unexpected suicide. Of course, the series of articles in the Sun newspaper naming Thomas as Jack the Ripper may have also played a role in the suicide... but one thing I do know. Our uncle Charles would not have been happy with that Catholic Home Secretary giving senior police officers such a hard time about their pension and working rights.
Wonderful insight, Robert.
And John, thank you for your important piece as well.
Much to think about. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 909
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
This must rank among the major finds!Thanks Robert and John for what may be the vehicle that could take us to the heart of the Cutbush [Charles and Thomas] enigma.It made me wonder if they were"nt engaged later with discrediting Charles for being too Bolshy and just possibly "leaking" information to "The Sun" newspaper about his nephew to destrpy his credibility altogether.
Best Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2597
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Hi John, AP, Natalie
John, thanks indeed for that. Looks like I'll be trying to chase up police journals on two suspects!
AP, well we know from that obit you found that he stood up for his men.
Natalie - Machiavellian!
I've done another check on the police orders site, but the info on Supt Cutbush is still minimal - i.e. just that he was pensioned effectively from 10th August 1891.
Robert |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 249
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 9:17 pm: | |
Thanks A.P., Robert, and hello Natalie and all,
For those of you who have read Howells and Skinner's THE RIPPER LEGACY, you may recognise the above kerfuffle over police pensions as the (possible) reason 'The Times' accused James Munro of being "indiscreet".
If I am correct, then the word "indiscreet" applied to: his not maintaining appropriate distance from his men; and inappropriately, being closely involved in their fight over better working conditions.
However Munro, mulling over this charge by The Times' later in life, seems to have thought the word "indiscreet" meant that he had revealed something to the public which should have been kept quiet.I should think such an accusation (wrongly construed ) would have been anathema to a dedicated former head of the Police Special (Irish) Branch.
I wonder just what piece of information Munro imagined 'The Times' was wrongly accusing him of revealing??? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2601
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
Hi John
It's some time since I read "The Ripper Legacy" all the way through, as opposed to browsing, but I think this is the raid referred to in Chapter 1X :
From "The Times" 13th and 14th of May 1889 :
14th May next.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2602
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
The first raid, at the Adelphi club, didn't net such glamorous fish as the second, though it did catch John Knight, 26, barrister of 5 KBW. On the second raid :
Robert |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 83
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Hi Robert,
I have not ventured into the area of records research yet but I am sure I will at some stage. When I do rest assured that Cutbush will be a name at the very top of the list. Not sure how I go about researching those in Melbourne from Perth yet, but will figure that out.
Thanks for all the recent articles, they have been illuminating.
Scotty. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2606
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
No worries, Scotty. I don't know what the set-up is down there.
Robert |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
Hi Wolf, Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I am still a bit shakey on the Cutbush theory but I have spent the last few days reading up on him. It is strange that he is not on the casebook suspect page.
I have read other books and have heard from other riperologist that police aid to the east end stood down rather soon after the Kelly murder. I believe the police increased there patroles from 25 to over 80 and after the Kelly murder they increased them to over 140 policemen. Then suddenly in less time then between the double event and the Kelly murder, after the Kelly murder the police stood down. Some suggest that this indicates that the police were sure that there would be no more murders and that they may have known the identity of the ripper. I dont think that if this is true it exactly fits into the Cutbush theory but it could be a indication They knew who the ripper was.
All the best,CB |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 254
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
Robert (Charles Linford),
Your find of the Munro police raids on gentlemen's clubs had an echo earlier this year(?) when Chris Scott posted up a press mention (dated 1888) of promised sensation and the fleeing abroad of several noblemen following a police raid. The account was not specific, just floated a rumour.
Subsequently, Chris lodged another post correcting a (RARE) error, the date on the account should have read "1889". I wonder if that item links in with your police raid articles?
Secondly,Attention A.P.:
I have been in contact with the Photographic Archivist at Barnardo's, the English Children's Charity, sorry to say, they have no further streetscape glimpses of Clarendon Villas.
However, my request for contact with someone who resided there prior to 1952 will be publicised in the next tri-monthly Barnardo journal.
Robert Linford again:
Regarding your post of June 18 last, if Scottie has no luck finding information about your THOMAS TAYLOR CUTBUSH, I'll see what I can dig up over the other side of Orstraylier. Like Scottie, not sure whats available.
And I'm still a few hundred kilometres north of Melbourne too!
JOHN RUFFELS. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2647
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
John, thanks for the Cutbush offer.
I'll see what I can find out about the gaming. Was this what Monro was complaining about?
"TIMES" Mar 5th 1903
Robert |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 117
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 5:59 am: | |
Hi all,
I did have a search on the net for BMD records online in Victoria. It appears there is a site where you can pay to view search results of their records. The price seemed reasonable (50c for a page of 20 results or something like that). I was at work at the time though and got diverted onto things my boss thinks are more important. Will look again though.
Scotty. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 255
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 6:56 am: | |
Hello Scotty & Robert,
I too checked the local Google sites. Came up with a person named "Mr T.T.Cutbush" passenger on the ship "You Yangs" from Port Melbourne to Sydney, 30th March, 1875. No kith or kin on board with him. No further details.
So it looks like he was still alive then. No trace of him -or any Cutbushes - in Sydney in the only P.O.Directory I have handy: Sands 1920.
I'll also see what else I can find later...
JOHN RUFFELS. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2654
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 7:38 am: | |
Hi Scotty and John
Many thanks for that. I guess his occupation would be commercial clerk, though he may have become a merchant in his own right. I think he was alive as late as 1885.
Thanks again.
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.
|
|
|
|
