Archive through December 8, 1998

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through December 8, 1998

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Cutbush, Thomas: Archive through December 8, 1998

Author: Jeff D Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 07:52 am
I have just finished reading "Jack the Myth" by A P Wolf, and I have found this to be a very interesting read, attempting to delve into the mind of the Ripper, and other Serial killers. It's not a long drawn out book which analyses every aspect of every clue, but it does give an excellent insight into the mind and motives, behind Serial killers and the type of killer Jack the Ripper must have been. One thing that just leaps out at you in this book, is the story behing the McNaughton memoranda, and specifically McNaughton's defense of Thomas Cutbush, to such an extent that 3-names are thrown into the hat, any one of whom would be a more likely Ripper. Why would McNaughton do this ? I believe is an excellent question. Why would such a Senior Police officer write to challenge an article in a Newspaper to defend someone so unimportant as Cutbush ? This work rightly questions the fact that at no other time in the history of the police, has a senior police official made such a public claim to a newspaper to defend such a person, charged with a minor crime. Then point the finger at 3 other possible suspects. The Memoranda has been considered one of the most prominent works by all Ripperologists, yet at no time has the motive behind the document ever been considered or challenged. First of all, could any expert in the field confirm that Thomas Cutbush actually was related (Nephew) to a very senior police official, who eventually commited suicide ? I was just amazed how Cutbush has been dismissed so flippantly by every expert over the years, and the other names in the memoranda have suffered such extensive scrutiny. Have most of the people here read Jack the Myth, and dismissed this work too ? I sometimes get carried away after reading a book on the subject, but there are so many questions relating to Cutbush, and possible police cover up, that are at the least, worthy of discussion ? Isn't the fact that Thomas Cutbush was arrested and then held "at Her Majesty's pleasure" in an asylum, just for prodding a couple of women with a knife, a little like overkill? We are basically talking of a life sentence here for a minor incident, does this not seem strange ? There were drawings that Cutbush had made while he was in the asylum of mutilated women with their intestines protruding, for example. Does not even this little tid-bit indicate we should look into Cutbush a little further ? Besides looking into Cutbush, Colin Wilson's work on the subject of Serial killers is openly challenged in just about every aspect. JtR being the kind of killer on a mission from God makes excellent sense. The Whitechapel horrors were NOT sexual crimes, this is obvious, and quotes from the Bible, specific to some of the mutilations performed on the victims really do help you to understand what "could" have been going on in the mind of the killer, while he was performing these atrocities. I'm not saying for 1-minute that AP Wolf has solved the Whitechapel case, and no new evidence is put forth, but so many interesting points are raised, including an excellent profiling of the crimes, and type of serial killer the Whitechapel murderer was, which even if not Cutbush, JtR definitely was a particular type of killer. Many cross-references are used between JtR and other Serial killers through history, helping you to appreciate how simple, ordinary appearing men, can do these horrible things to people. If you haven't read this short book, I do recommend it. At the very least, would people here on Casebook message boards think Thomas Cutbush is a suspect worthy of further discussion ? I would very much like a comment from Paul Begg on Cutbush. AP Wolf appears to me, to hold Mr. Begg's opinions in the highest regard, and rightly considers him one of the foremost experts in the field, yet does questions Mr. Begg's adherance to the McNaughton memoranda stating that Cutbush is not even worthy of writing a sentence or two about. Surely Mr. Begg must know as must about Cutbush as anyone, I'd be very interested to hear why Cutbush should be dismissed as a suspect so easily. Regards Jeff D
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 03:09 pm
Hi Jeff Thomas Hayne Cutbush (1865-1903) was the nephew of Supt. Charles Henry Cutbush (1844-1896)of Scotland Yard who after some years of mental instability did indeed commit suicide by shooting himself. Scotland Yard seem to have given the claims against Cutbush serious consideration, but he was dismissed and has continued to be dismissed because of the probable accuracy of Macnaghten's observation that Jack the Ripper would not have gone from the butchery in Miller's Court to mere (by comparison) stabbing. Prior to the crimes he had been detained as a lunatic and was sentenced to Broadmoor. "At Her Majesty's pleasure" effectively means until the patient is deemed sane, which isn't overkill because the patient could recover and be released in a shorter time than he would otherwise have done had he been sent to prison. Not wishing to plug my own book, of course, but you'll find entries under 'Cutbush' in The Jack the Ripper A to Z. I didn't discuss him in The Uncensored Facts because it wasn't my intention to do more than discuss those suspects taken seriously by the police, which I did in the body text. Cutbush wasn't treated seriously by them (as far as one could tell) and Macnaghten's explanation seemed wholly reasonable.
Author: Yazoo Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 06:03 pm
Hey, Jeff. Another book I'll have to add to my reading list. But from Paul's (or whoever wrote the entry) description in JtR A -Z, it seems Cutbush contracted syphilis "c. 1888." When exactly did Cutbush's strange behavior begin -- his midnight rambles and muddy-clothed returns? It seems from Macnaghten that his "brain seems to have become affected" after 1888. What evidence is there of any religious mania in the JtR series? What evidence is there that Cutbush suffered from religious mania? Prior to 1891, the year of the stabbings, what acts of violence did Cutbush commit? All of the above could probably be answered with 3 small words, right? Read the book! (I will.) But Macnaghten's litany of Cutbush's strange behaviors reads to me as if they occurred after 1888. He came to police attention because of stabbing women (in their bottoms, I presume) in 1891, and then he was investigated. The knife he possesed was purchased in 1891. The only suspicion against Cutbush is retroactively assuming his 1891 behavior also was prevelent in 1888 and that no one could verify his whereabouts -- 3 years later, mind you -- on the nights of the 5 murders. Also, unless I'm misreading the entries for Macnaghten in A-Z, his memorandum (at least the Scotland Yard version) is marked "Confidential," and none of the three versions of the Memorandum was ever published as you state (or maybe quote from Wolf): "This work rightly questions the fact that at no other time in the history of the police, has a senior police official made such a public claim to a newspaper to defend such a person, charged with a minor crime. Then point the finger at 3 other possible suspects." The newspaper article apparently came out in 1894; Cutbush had been in the asylum for three years by then. Macnaghten's audience is the police, and you have to draw any conclusions as to his motive for writing to them. As he describes the investigation of Cutbush by three Scotland Yard investigators, he possibly just wanted to save a waste of time researching Cutbush any further. That seems the most reasonable but you can choose any other motive you want...as long as it doesn't relate to any public defense/debate/cover-up. I agree with Paul's observation on "her Majesty's Pleasure." But there is one famous historical figure who vociferously attacked a similar (French) royal cachet that sent him to asylums several times -- and, in general, he was correct in pointing out its actual and potential abuses. The historical figure was the Marquis de Sade. I'm sure "her Majesty's pleasure," as much as the French cachet, did have its legitimate uses too! Yaz
Author: Christopher-Michael Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 10:07 pm
Jeff - It's certainly not my place to disabuse anyone from reading a Ripper book, and Wolf's is not the worst ever written on the subject, though I find the ill-concealed distaste with which she (it is rumoured) holds this field of study offensive. I do not appreciate being considered an "armchair murderer" indulging in a "special" kind of "pornography." However. . .you intrigue me with your assertion that the Ripper as a divinely inspired killer makes excellent sense. How so? Someone who felt that they were ordained to kill prostitutes would not, one thinks, do so in secret. Either JTR was insane, in which case he would not consider what he was doing to be wrong (and would, in fact, stand over the bodies to declare the murders his work) or he was sane, in which case - no matter how "divine" he might consider the command to kill whores - he would still know that murder is wrong. There is actually a clinical term for the sort of dissociative mental disease I am describing, but I'm afraid I am nowhere near my psychology texts. My apologies. You also interest me by saying that it is "obvious" the Whitechapel Murders are not sexual crimes. Why? If not, then what are they crimes of? Power? Passion? Purpose? I'm not trying to be difficult, but your points do interest me, and I'd like to know your reasoning behind them. Regards, Christopher-Michael
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 07 December 1998 - 03:13 am
Just to clarify the Macnaghten Memoranda. It was never published and it is not known why it was written. It does not appear to have been used by anybody. It is assumed that it was prepared in anticipation of questions being asked in Parliament of the Home Secretary (especially given the connection between Thos. Cutbush and Supt. Cutbush, which someone might have used to accuse the police of a cover up). But no questions seem to have been asked and it's thought that the document was simply files for some future use if required. There are two extant versions: 1. In the police files: first described by Donald Rumbelow in 1975. 2. In the possession of Macnaghten's descendants: discovered by Daniel Farson in 1959. They differ in detail marginally, but most importantly with regard to minor details about the named suspects. For example, in the former he wrote of 'Kosminski': 'This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the P.C. near Mitre Square.' This is absent from the Scotland Yard version, which adds: 'There were many circs. Connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'. A possible third version was seen by Phillip in the early 1950s in the possession of a descendant of Macnahgten named Gerald Melvlle Donnerand twice described by him. He first described it in a letter to Lady Aberconway in August 1972. He gave the three named suspects as: (a) Michael John Druitt, (b) a feeble minded man who stabbed girls with nail scissors, (c) a Polish Jew cobbler nicknamed Leather Apron. In October 1972 he wrote in the Guardian identifying the same suspects but omitting the words 'Leather Apron' and referring to Druitt by his initials. Loftus was recalling a document he had seen in the early 1950s. Debate surrounds what Loftus may have seen, but since 'a feeble minded man who stabbed girls with nail scissors' is almost certainly a reference to Cutbush and as the Memoranda was specifically written to refute the suggestion that Cutbush was the Ripper, it is hardly likely that Macnaghten would have named him as a Ripper suspect, so prima facie Loftus's memory was at fault. However, in the letter to Lady Aberconway he referred to 'Michael John Druitt', which, though an error for 'Montague John Druitt', is nonetheless curious because both extant versions refer only to M.J. Druitt. Further, neither extant version identifies 'Kosminski' as 'Leather Apron' or identifies him as a cobbler. So, though Loftus's memory is certainly at fault when it comes to Cutbush as one of the named suspects, was he nevertheless accurately remembering other details in what would therefore have to be a pre-Aberconway version draft. The inclination is to say 'no', especially given that before writing to Lady Aberconway Loftus had read Tom Cullen's book and may have been influenced by it. However, in his letter to Lady Aberconway he actually wrote: 'My recollections of the notes, which differ from those quoted in the American journalist Tom Cullen's book�' Weight is attached to the Memoranda because it is (a) a police source and (b) comes from a senior officer who, though not active in the original investigations, by his own admissions took an special interest in the case. It was at one time strenuously advocated by some writers that no seriousness should be attached to the three named suspects because Macnaghten only said that they were men more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper. This expression was interpreted as meaning something along the lines of 'Cutbush makes such an unlikely suspect that even Champion the Wonder Horse would be preferable'. However, it has been pointed out that Druitt was Macnaghten's own favoured candidate and that 'Kosminski' was almost certainly the Polish Jew suspect favoured by Anderson. The senior and informed policemen are known to have favoured two of the three named suspects suggest that they were indeed primary candidates for the Ripper's laurels. Finally, despite the rumours to the contrary, A.P. Wolf is a male. I, too, dislike his 'assault' on Ripper enthusiasts. After all, we are not interested in the murder and mutilation of women, but in the mystery surrounding a maniac who murdered and mutilated women. There are those who argue that this interest glorifies the Ripper and in so doing glorifies the murder and mutilation of woman, but I don't think such an argument has any greater validity than suggesting that the study of King Arthur is the glorification of warfare (because he is remembered by posterity because of the battle he fought, notably Badon) or that the study of Wyatt Earp is a glorification of gunplay. But that's my opinion.
Author: Yazoo Monday, 07 December 1998 - 05:40 am
Gee, maybe one less book I have to read. Yaz
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 07 December 1998 - 09:38 am
Yaz Nope. Read the book and decide for yourself. And it is now a bit of a collectors item, so it'll fetch a resonable amount of folding money. A fair future investment! Paul
Author: Jeff D Monday, 07 December 1998 - 10:09 am
Dear Paul, CM and all ! I would like to offer sincere thanks for taking the time to respond, and give an excellent explanation of the McNaughton memoranda. Your selfless contributions, observations, and explanations here on message boards are greatly appreciated. I think it's absolutely fantastic to have such a forum as this, where ideas can be explained, or challenged (where necessary), by people willing to give of their own time, and expertise, to help those such as myself to understand. I would like to state my understanding of "the Myth" book is that, Wolf is not advocating any particular suspect. The author is only raising a lot of good questions and observations, causing one to consider the possible motives behind the crimes. This is all I got out of the book, basically an understanding of what "can" go on in the minds of many serial killers, which can help appreciate what may have been going on in the mind of the Ripper himself. As far as Cutbush goes, basic comparisons of Cutbush against many other ridiculous candidates are drawn which do cause one to keep an open mind. Serial killers have, in the past, reduced the severity of their crimes as in the case of the Boston strangler, who after his 13th. murder victim, then resorted to the lesser crime of rape. (please excuse my calling rape a lesser crime). Also that we are restricted in our consideration of the Whitechapel murders by concentrating on a ten week period, when many many Serial killers have lain dormant for many years before commiting their next crime. It seemed to my own humble self, that Wolf appears correct in saying the crimes were not specifically sexual in their nature. Some sort of Biblical crusade against whores does make a lot more sense. The type of man who hears voices commanding him to rid the world of whores, is a stronger reason than a sexual killer, interested in necrophilia (which didn't happen), or rape, or masturbating over the corpse(which none of these happened). The main thing that I commend Wolf's book on is that it does raise more questions than answers, and gives a different perspective from which one may view the murders, viewpoints which I believe should be considered in the ultimate quest to determine JtR's identity. Even the link with Crossingham's lodging house, 35 Dorset Street, is an actual connection (barely tenable, but an existent link nonetheless) that can be made between nearly all of the victims, which could cause one to consider people like Timothy Donavan a little further. I was hoping this aspect would have been covered more extensively in the book, but then no further mention is made. I would like to initiate further discussion on Crossingham's in future, because I think this may be an excellent detail to consider and discuss here on message boards. For ever, people have been trying to make a link between the victims, and Crossinghams does appear to be a possible connection? Christopher Michael is also correct in his excellent observations. Basically though, the "Myth" book is just a cursory look into the murders, requiring a lot more detail to get a better understanding of what the author is really getting at, but then again, as stated no particular suspect is put forth, just many (I think)good questions and possibilities are raised. From our Glorious leaders greatly appreciated contribution I, as McNaughton before me, shall not give a great deal of further consideration to Cutbush, though many many more suspects with even weaker considerations have been made in the past. Thanks All ! Jeff D
Author: Peter Birchwood Monday, 07 December 1998 - 10:58 am
Gentles All: Whatever happened to Colicott and has he ever been identified? Was he Cutbush under a pseudonym or an entirely different person who seems to have got away with it. He may have been more violent than Cutbush. I wonder if the infamous knife belonging to Don Rumbelow might in fact have been the one that Macnaghten suggests belonged to Cutbush and was bought in 1891? And Paul, I greatly commend your remark about most of us being interested in the mystery rather than the physical fact of the murders. I am surprised however that you didn't know that Michael John Druitt was actually Montague's wicked identical twin. Did you not know that or are you (horrors!) part of the conspiracy referred to earlier? Peter.
Author: Yazoo Monday, 07 December 1998 - 10:59 am
Jeff, I actually agree with Wolf that the JtR "traditional five" don't appear sexually motivated (as most people think of that term and as you describe). Why? Because of the relatively little damage done to the EXTERNAL features that "define" gender. JtR dissected his victims, rudely, crudely, but not obviously sexually. Also for the reasons you describe (minus the religious mania) in paragraph 3 of your note, Jeff. But maybe Paul (or other historians of this time period) can help with my one reservation: Am I guilty here of trying to impose the present's value system onto the past's possibly very different value system...specifically, am I attributing modern serial killers' psychological-sexual motivations or trigger mechanisms (and their manifestations in how they kill) onto the Victorian Age where no such motivations or "triggers" exist or fit quite so neatly? As to reading the book...oh alright, one more on the reading list. But note my objection -- as if it mattered! If the man whose book is about JtR questions my (his reader) motivation/inclination for reading ANY book on JtR, why should I read his? Or are we all exempt from just that one book? Yaz
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 07 December 1998 - 11:57 am
Hi Peter I thought about saying that this was from the High Command of the conspiratorial organisation, but I didn't want to take the p... er, extract the urine. So, moving hastilly on to Colicutt, thoughts are, as far as I know, and Stewart will hopefully correct me, that Colicutt is in fact one Edwin Colocitt, who was arrested just before Cutbush in the identical area to Cutbush and charged with identical crimes. He was found guilty but released into the care of his family who put up a assurities of �100 and promised to have full-time attendents to ensure that Colocitt did not re-offend. (Full credit goes to that superb researcher and all round jolly good chap, Nick Connell for this info which will no doubt appear in the next edition of - and I don't want to plug my book, but as Yaz is plugging Stewarts and I need the royalty money more than he does - The A to Z.
Author: Yazoo Monday, 07 December 1998 - 01:30 pm
BUY PAUL BEGG's BOOKS! And this means YOU! Paul, you need to boot your American publisher to get more copies on the shelves. Start a petition here to...oh, but you might need authorization from the High Command. Never mind, just boot the b------s! When are the secret decoders rings gonna get passed out? Yaz P.S., While innocent little me would hardly mock anything or anyone (Hi, CM!), I do not understand what the J'Accuse post on the secret organization was talking about. If someone feels anyone is stifling a subject, push that subject yourself! Look what Jeff's done with Cutbush! I hope he can find more about Cutbush and posts it here. I, for one, never meant to "knock" or inhibit Cutbush discussion, for example. And, except for the Black Hole of Calcutta which is the Maybrick Diary topic (y'all get into some 'fearsome' catfights on that topic, you must admit), I don't see anyone hiding info or squelching debate. People like Jeff start me thinking, maybe I can start some thoughts with them. Anyway...END OF SECRET TRANSMISSION -- Destroy this post after reading.
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 07 December 1998 - 04:47 pm
Yaz, you're two-timin' me, I'm disappointed. Stewart
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 07 December 1998 - 04:56 pm
I'm not. Paul
Author: Christopher-Michael Monday, 07 December 1998 - 06:34 pm
Well, it's good to know that the cash I laid out for "Jack the Myth" will bring some profit to my estate once I've shuffled off to that big pub in the sky. Thank you, oh Glorious Leader, for telling people it's now a collectors' item - God knows I've got to make some money off the Ripper somehow! Seriously, however - Jeff, you raise two interesting points that deserve further discussion: 1. Crossingham's: this has a superficial plausibility about it, because the same addresses tend to pop up once you begin to investigate the Ripper case. I can give you other examples besides Crossingham's - Martha Tabram's last address was 19 George Street, Emma Smith's 18 George Street and Mary Jane Kelly is said to have once lived in George Street. There is also the lodging house at 8 White's Row, which housed (at different times) Annie Millwood - who can be argued as the first known Ripper victim - and Frances Coles. There was also Wilmot's lodging house in 18 Thrawl Street, where Polly Nichols and Frances Coles both lived at one time or another. I don't, however, feel that such recurrences of common addresses are all that significant. All of the above were deep in the lodging house quarter of Spitalfields, and many of these boarding houses lodged 200-300 local people per night, as well as needy and destitute from all over the East End. The canonical five may well have known each other by sight (and I have never dismissed the possibility outright), but they would also have known hundreds of other women who roamed the streets of Whitechapel and who found shelter in the same lodging houses. As Jack the Ripper's killing field was less than a square mile in extent, it rather raises the probability that he would eventually murder women who had addresses, acquaintances or pubs in common. I would point out, as well, that Wolf makes the same mistake about Elizabeth Stride that Knight did in "Final Solution;" namely, that she lived at Crossingham's before she died. She was actually living at 35 DEVONSHIRE Street, not DORSET Street. Page 361 of Sugden lays out the addresses of the Ripper victims, and I shan't bore you by trying to give a precis of his excellent prose [buy philip sugden's book - this is a subliminal message]. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any detailed research into the denizens of Crossingham's. A full list would be found in the national census, but unfortunately the nearest is for 1891; and even then, such research might well be a blind alley. Remember, the police pursued this same line of investigation in 1888, and found nothing. Sometimes we have to accept that we might not be able to better their work. 2. Sexual / Biblical killers: of course, we cannot generalise in this area, and as we were not standing at the Ripper's elbow in 1888 (thank goodness), we cannot know the particular demons that drove him. However, absence of sexual "traces," as it were, does not invalidate the concept that sexual drives were behind the murders. I agree that no evidence of necrophilia, rape or masturbation was found at the murder scenes (and they were certainly looking for such evidence, at least in the case of Catharine Eddowes), but we cannot discount the possibility that the plunging of hands into a woman's womb provided the gratification the Ripper needed. Yaz will no doubt be surprised to find that I disagree with him (!), but it is fairly obvious to me that destruction of the womb and the lower part of the body containing reproductive organs was a focus of the Ripper. He certainly removed the "features that define gender" in Kelly's case, and one might think he would have done so with the others had time allowed. I see the point you're trying to make, Jeff, but I think the "command to kill" is too much of an obvious explanation. Why else, one thinks, would a man mutilate women? It was the first line of excuse for Peter Sutcliffe, and you can see what good it did him! As soon as I locate the psychology text I want to refer to, I promise to start a new discussion on this matter, as it's worth discussion. Obligatory sales pitch: Buy Paul's books! Buy Stuart's book! Buy Sugden's book! Buy my book! (whoops - don't have one yet!) Klaatu barada nikto, brothers (secret Masonic and Ripper fraternity hand signals here). As ever, Christopher-Michael
Author: Yazoo Monday, 07 December 1998 - 07:33 pm
Hey, CM! Good points on the sexual aspect. But I still think the sexual motive is more complex. I mean, JtR had time to go through some of these women's pockets (or whatever they carried their belongings in), and make his little arrangements of parts of viscera. If he wanted to, he had time to make the more typical wounds of a sexually-motivated killer. By the way, when I called my local bookstore for a copy of Stewart's...boo...well, you know...they placed it on hold for me. When I got to the store they told me this crazy story. Seems there was this thin, morbid looking guy with a huge stack of all the Ripper books available in the store, and he was asking for my copy -- the last Ripper-related book he didn't have! He said they misfiled it, as his name was Renfield not Yazoo. Spoke with an English accent. There was a slight scuffle. But the weight of the books in R.'s arms and my stalwart bookseller were defeating Mr. Renfield when they heard him say, "But my master needs it. Si-Yem needs it." Well, not knowing anything about this oriental sounding person, my sturdy bookseller tugged all the harder on my copy of Stewart's...boo...well, you know. Suddenly, a fly went by, distracting Mr. Renfield, who ended up wandering around the Dr, Suess books in the children's section, chasing the fly, until I came to rescue Stewart's...boo...well, you know. You wouldn't happen to know anything about this "Si-Yem" character, would you? Could he be the secret Glorious Leader? I wonder! Yaz
Author: A.M.P. Monday, 07 December 1998 - 07:39 pm
Hi, C-M I'm glad you raised this general point, having (so far) fruitlessly tried to restart the whole discussion as to whether the victims knew each other over on the Victims board. Your general point that the streets in which the victims lived, and indeed their addresses within those streets, may present a false co-incidence, I appreciate fully. But the sheer proximity of those lodging houses suggests that the victims might have known one another. Or that their killer knew one or more of them. Or alternatively, that knowing the area he just knew where to find them. Which is it? I'd love to see our book-writing experts offer a view about this. Then they could give themselves a plug! (As could anybody else with a considered view).
Author: Jeff D Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 07:26 am
Hello All ! Hey, just a quick one for Yaz ! There was a band in the 80's called "Yazoo" and among others, they did this brilliant song called "Nobody's Diary". It's the detective in me looking for references and cross-references, but does "Nobody's Diary" mean anything to you ? he he ! Back to the link I was explaining about Crossingham's, and of course I do understand that people have been looking for links in the murders, and the possibility that the victims were known to each other for as long as these murders were known, but when you take into account that there were 233 lodging houses in the vicinity, the fact that Crossingham's does keep popping up in the enquiries, can give one cause to consider a possible connection here. In Wolf's book, it states that Martha Tabram's friend, Mary Ann Connelly lived at 35 Dorset Street. Connelly then, and 2 other prostitutes who lived at Crossinghams were subsequesntly to give statements to the police, in the next 2 murder cases, those of Polly Nichols, and Annie Chapman. Then all 3 of these women apparently told police of their fears of a particular person. Annie Chapman herself, actually lived at Crossinghams. The keeper of the house was Timothy Donavan, who was to tell the police about Leather Apron John Pizer, who also had lived at Crossinghams at one time. There is not much of a link regarding the next 2 murders, Stride & Eddowes, other than on the night of the "Double Event", there was a sink which the murderer alledgedly used to wash his hands which was in Dorset St. (This point I know is barely tenable, and not even a 100% known fact, but a possibility nonetheless). Finally Mary Kelly's murder, at 13 Millers Court was directly accross the street from Crossinghams Lodging house. The argument about most of the inhabitants of Whitechapel, having to stay in these lodging houses is accepted, but with 233 different lodging houses, and Crossingham's appearing so often in the enquiries, I think a possible link could be worth discussing ? Any ideas ? Cheers all ! Jeff D PS sorry for choosing the wrong header to discuss this matter, I was just carrying on the link, I guess, from Wolf's book.
Author: Yazoo Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 09:24 am
Hey, Jeff, How did you know my real name is Nobody...but alas, I am unrelated to the Maybrick clan. I actually got Yazoo from the Mississippi Delta region, home of the Blues...and because the other 999 names I tried on yahoo.com were all taken! Never heard of the group though, sorry. Also know nothing on Crossingham's or 1888 lodging houses, sorry-squared. Yaz
Author: Jeff D Tuesday, 08 December 1998 - 10:05 am
Shows how good of a detective I am, I guess ! Oh well...... I think Yaz is a great name anyway, and its nice to hear how you came by it too ! Cheers Yaz !