Cutbush and Cutbush?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, my apologies. I misspoke. Bullock makes so many unsourced claims that it's difficult to keep them straight. It was, of course, a different woman that Cutbush supposedly raped, though no source is given.

As for the quote by Clara, Donald McCormick couldn't have written it any better.

It's strange that Clara vocally defended her nephew back in 1891 (in a published account) but according to Bullock---who again gives no source or reference even for direct quotes--she is now supposedly admitting that he was a rapist. That's rather a strange turn of events!

Much of Bullock's case against Cutbush is either fiction or (at best) speculation stated as fact. His claim that 'Kennedy Jones and Louis Tracy' investigated Cutbush for The Sun may not even be accurate. According to the Buffalo News, it was Robert Batho:

Behind The Sun : The Man Who Investigated Thomas Cutbush - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century

We know that Cutbush went out at night. We know that he blamed a prostitute for giving him syphilis. We know that he worked in Whitechapel. We know that he pushed an old man down the stairs. We know that he stabbed two women in the back. We know that he carried a knife and that one was found in his room along with some turpentine covered clothing stuffed up a chimney piece. We know of his fascination with anatomy and drawings. We know that there was an outhouse in the garden which was apparently pulled down sometime after he was arrested.

Invented conversations and speculations presented as facts can’t be defended under any circumstances though Roger. His ‘conversation’ between Race and Clara for example spawned the rape story and an elaboration about the outhouse. The Sun mentioned its existence and the fact that it was pulled down after Cutbush’s incarceration and yet Bullock has four additions:

“In 1893, Clara offered up a clue. During an interview with KJ, she informed the reporter that in the rear garden of 14 Albert Street stood a brick outhouse, a place used solely by Cutbush. Kate had entered it once and though never enlightening her sister as to what she had discovered inside, on the day of her son’s arrest she arranged for it to be pulled down and destroyed, with the rubble removed immediately, leaving no trace of what once stood in its place.”

I still think that we know enough to make Cutbush an interesting suspect who ‘ticks more boxes’ than most if not all (which far from makes him guilty of course) and a good subject for a new book at some point from someone who will stick to the evidence without the literary flourishes, leaps of faith and apparently downright inventions.

[Lewis C]

Random thoughts/questions here -if anyone has any input/ideas I'd appreciate the feedback-
Thomas Cutbush was convicted of two assaults, both committed on/after 5th March when he absconded from the Lambeth workhouse.
Prior to that Collicott was said to have been responsible for numerous assaults involving jabbing/jobbing starting in January 1891\ Both men were identified by their victims, Collicott in Lambeth police station (by an undisclosed number of girls) and Cutbush in Peckham asylum(by just Florence and Isabel presumably?) the two women he was convicted of harming.
Cutbush was in the workhouse prior to being found insane on 5th March and being admitted to Peckham private asylum- Collicott was deemed guilty of the jobbings January to the end of Feb? If so, Cutbush, in common with Kosminski had been sent to an asylum for attacking a female relative with a knife? Cutbush was certainly admitted to the workhouse described as being violent and dangerous despite him not being convicted of anything prior to his 5th March assault. Is Cutbush at least on an even keel with Kosminski in terms of prior?

Hi Debra,

I would say that Cutbush is on more than an even keel with Aaron in terms of prior, because Aaron only threatened a woman with a knife, and I think we only know of him doing it once, while Cutbush actually attacked with a knife, and did it twice.

[Lewis C]

Hi Debra, this is from the Hainsworths:

Thanks Deb for your kind welcome to the Druitt Lepers. We expect our posts to be ignored by most of the Whitechapel Cognoscenti - with the exception of the Yank contingent (Roger, Tom, Mike, Jonathan, expat Simon) and your good self - we just wanted our rebuttal put on the record.

You are quite right that the Mac Report(s) are a problematic puzzle. Competing interpretations are thus both inevitable and healthy. What is anathema to the Orthodox, however, is any interpretation which 1) casts Macnaghten as smart, certain and well-informed, and 2) posits Druitt as the posthumous solution to five of the dozen or so cowardly murders of vulnerable sex workers in the East End slums - which is the implication of 1).

We would just point out that any analyst must reckon with Macnaghten's fervent belief - right or wrong - in Druitt's guilt. Everything he writes in those non-identical twin documents was through the lens of that belief. We would also advise that his 1914 memoir chapter, "Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper" is the de-facto third version of the report and, within self-proscribed limits, the most candid and the most accurate.

Cheers, Christine and Jonathan
Leper Colony, South Australia

Hi Christine and Jonathan,

I would suggest that Mac's belief in Druitt's guilt wasn't especially fervent. He was Mac's #1 suspect, but if he fervently believed in Druitt's guilt, he wouldn't have also listed Kosminski and Ostrog as suspects. Druitt would have been his only suspect.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Christine and Jonathan,

I would suggest that Mac's belief in Druitt's guilt wasn't especially fervent. He was Mac's #1 suspect, but if he fervently believed in Druitt's guilt, he wouldn't have also listed Kosminski and Ostrog as suspects. Druitt would have been his only suspect.

His non-comittal being an indication he didn't want to put all his eggs in one basket, in case he was somehow proven wrong or made to look stupid.

[rjpalmer]

We know that Cutbush went out at night. We know that he blamed a prostitute for giving him syphilis. We know that he worked in Whitechapel. We know that he pushed an old man down the stairs. We know that he stabbed two women in the back. We know that he carried a knife and that one was found in his room along with some turpentine covered clothing stuffed up a chimney piece. We know of his fascination with anatomy and drawings. We know that there was an outhouse in the garden which was apparently pulled down sometime after he was arrested.

Hi Mike, let me push the envelope.

How do we 'know that he blamed a prostitute for giving him syphilis'? All Macnaghten tells us is that Cutbush 'apparently' contracted syphilis 'about' 1888. That sounds rather speculative, and if it was actually 1889, or was schizophrenia instead of syphilis, how would contracting the disease be a motive for the Whitechapel Murders?

As for pushing an old man down the stairs, I know that Robert Linford tried to find an independent account of this alleged event, as did I, and neither of us could find one which seems rather strange. If this allegation was a fact, instead of speculation or rumor, then why wasn't Cutbush prosecuted? Why didn't the old man notify the police? Is an account of this event still waiting to be found and verified, or was it just innuendo? I'd like to see something more substantive before I call it a 'fact.'

The verifiable accounts of Cutbush wandering the streets at night, buying a knife, stabbing two women (if guilty, which he probably was), and supposedly having bloody clothes up the chimney all date to 1891. The Sun uses vague wording to make it sound as if this was Cutbush's behavior in 1888, which is not proven.

We also don't know when Cutbush was a clerk/canvasser in the East End. As he is identified as a 'clerk' in the 1881 census, this could have been some years before the events of 1888. That would still give him knowledge of the area but it is clear that Race tried to trace Cutbush's whereabouts on the nights of the 1888 murders, just as Swanson attempted to do with Sadler, but according to Macnaghten (which is all we have), the police weren't successful in reference to Cutbush. So we currently don't know where he lived in 1888 (it was probably south of the river--why would he pay rent elsewhere?) nor do we know where he was employed.

None of this is to say that Cutbush isn't an interesting case study nor that he wasn't a police suspect insofar as he was investigated in 1891 for a connection to the events of 1888, especially in the light of the Coles murder that February, but I personally approach The Sun exposure with considerable skepticism, as did Macnaghten. The reason I have studied Cutbush in detail is that he interests me as a suspect, though I wouldn't consider him a plausible one. I'd never say never.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike, let me push the envelope.

How do we 'know that he blamed a prostitute for giving him syphilis'? All Macnaghten tells us is that Cutbush 'apparently' contracted syphilis 'about' 1888. That sounds rather speculative, and if it was actually 1889, or was schizophrenia instead of syphilis, how would contracting the disease be a motive for the Whitechapel Murders?

As for pushing an old man down the stairs, I know that Robert Linford tried to find an independent account of this alleged event, as did I, and neither of us could find one which seems rather strange. If this allegation was a fact, instead of speculation or rumor, then why wasn't Cutbush prosecuted? Why didn't the old man notify the police? Is an account of this event still waiting to be found and verified, or was it just innuendo? I'd like to see something more substantive before I call it a 'fact.'

The verifiable accounts of Cutbush wandering the streets at night, buying a knife, stabbing two women (if guilty, which he probably was), and supposedly having bloody clothes up the chimney all date to 1891. The Sun uses vague wording to make it sound as if this was Cutbush's behavior in 1888, which is not proven.

We also don't know when Cutbush was a clerk/canvasser in the East End. As he is identified as a 'clerk' in the 1881 census, this could have been some years before the events of 1888. That would still give him knowledge of the area but it is clear that Race tried to trace Cutbush's whereabouts on the nights of the 1888 murders, just as Swanson attempted to do with Sadler, but according to Macnaghten (which is all we have), the police weren't successful in reference to Cutbush. So we currently don't know where he lived in 1888 (it was probably south of the river--why would he pay rent elsewhere?) nor do we know where he was employed.

None of this is to say that Cutbush isn't an interesting case study nor that he wasn't a police suspect insofar as he was investigated in 1891 for a connection to the events of 1888, especially in the light of the Coles murder that February, but I personally approach The Sun exposure with considerable skepticism, as did Macnaghten. The reason I have studied Cutbush in detail is that he interests me as a suspect, though I wouldn't consider him a plausible one. I'd never say never.

There is the letter produced in The Sun articles where Cutbush lies to Dr Brooks to hide his ‘beastliness’ which implies something sexual and it’s not particularly surprising that the actual word wasn’t used in print but surely it’s entirely likely that the reporters spoke to the doctor. Yes, of course I accept that it would should require sources to have been produced.

On his employment, yes it would certainly have been preferable to have have documentary proof but The Sun reporters did say:

“On July 24, 1888, exactly a fortnight before the date of the first Whitechapel murders, which occurred on August 7, 1888, a young man succeeded in obtaining employment at a firm in the immediate district of the murders.”

Is it unlikely that they would have spoken to his employer and found out when he’d commenced work?

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

I would say that Cutbush is on more than an even keel with Aaron in terms of prior, because Aaron only threatened a woman with a knife, and I think we only know of him doing it once, while Cutbush actually attacked with a knife, and did it twice.

Hi Lewis,

The thing that also interests me is that Thomas Cutbush entered Newington workhouse on 5th March 1891 before the first of the two assaults he was subsequently charged with. Cutbush absconded from the workhouse the same day, after supper. [SoBG/111/28]
He went on to assault Florence Grace Johnson that evening, 5th March, according to several newspapers.
That same day (5th March) he was certified by magistrate George Leonard Tueney and Dr John Frederick Williams who examined him in the workhouse (so before he absconded and attacked Johnson), to be a person of unsound mind, and ordered to be sent to Peckham House, Licensed House (asylum) due to his violence. In another part of the form he was described as a danger to others and very violent. [St Saviour’s Union Copy Lunatic orders 1891]

I believe that Collicott was guilty of the previous 'South London stabbings' that occurred in January and February the same year, which he was found guilty of, several women identifying him at Lambeth police station but because of his weak intellect his sentence was for his wealthy father and uncle to pay sureties and supervise him. I don't think Cutbush's charges, one of wounding and one of attempted wounding mean Collicott was innocent. So Cutbush was already deemed violent before he was charged with anything.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Mike,

I think you'll agree that there is a huge leap of faith needed to travel from Cutbush referring to 'beastliness' in an undated letter to Dr. Brookes and him "blaming a prostitute for syphilis" let alone this being as a suitable motive for the Whitechapel Murders.

We don't know the name of Dr. Brookes because there were a family of doctors of that name, all working out of 137 Westminster Bridge Road--the street named by Macnaghten. They occupied the building for a number of years in the 1880s and 90s, so it is impossible to narrow down the date the letter, but seeing its proximity to Kennington, I'm guessing the letter was sent when Cutbush was clearly going insane in 1890-1891 and not when he was working in the East End sometime earlier.

Macnaghten wrote that Cutbush also complained about Brook(e)s in a letter to the Treasury, so it is theoretically possible that a record of the letter survives which would give us a better idea of the chronology of events. Personally, I suspect that The Sun deliberately kept the chronology of events vague at times to bolster their accusations against Cutbush.