Cutbush and Cutbush?

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know that Macnaghten, in his memorandum, stated that Supt. Charles Cutbush was the uncle of Thomas Hayne Cutbush. We now know that this isn’t the case. So how could this have happened?

I realise that Macnaghten comes in for some heavy criticism from some quarters but how could he have made such an error? It would have been natural to ask if two people called Cutbush might be related but why would someone assume it? And surely when it came to possibly linking a colleague to someone like Thomas he would have wanted to be sure…then again, the memorandum wasn’t intended for public consumption of course. I can’t think of any reason why he would have knowingly made this incorrect link so how did he come to make this error?

[The Rookie Detective]

We know that Macnaghten, in his memorandum, stated that Supt. Charles Cutbush was the uncle of Thomas Hayne Cutbush. We now know that this isn’t the case. So how could this have happened?

I realise that Macnaghten comes in for some heavy criticism from some quarters but how could he have made such an error? It would have been natural to ask if two people called Cutbush might be related but why would someone assume it? And surely when it came to possibly linking a colleague to someone like Thomas he would have wanted to be sure…then again, the memorandum wasn’t intended for public consumption of course. I can’t think of any reason why he would have knowingly made this incorrect link so how did he come to make this error?

Has it been definitively proven that his uncle wasn't the police officer of the same distinctively rare surname?

[Tani]

We know that Macnaghten, in his memorandum, stated that Supt. Charles Cutbush was the uncle of Thomas Hayne Cutbush. We now know that this isn’t the case. So how could this have happened?

I realise that Macnaghten comes in for some heavy criticism from some quarters but how could he have made such an error? It would have been natural to ask if two people called Cutbush might be related but why would someone assume it? And surely when it came to possibly linking a colleague to someone like Thomas he would have wanted to be sure…then again, the memorandum wasn’t intended for public consumption of course. I can’t think of any reason why he would have knowingly made this incorrect link so how did he come to make this error?

Sounds like a serious miscommunication.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has it been definitively proven that his uncle wasn't the police officer of the same distinctively rare surname?

According to Debra Arif, Chris Scott, Roger Palmer and Robert Linford (to name but four) they weren’t. That’s good enough for me Chris…I suspect that it will be good enough for you too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sounds like a serious miscommunication.

I just find it a bit of strange one Tani. Maybe I’ll have a read round on the subject as it’s been a while.

[Lewis C]

I'm glad you mentioned this Herlock, because I was under the impression that they were uncle and nephew. IIRC, A.P. Wolf thought so too. So I take it that not only were they not uncle and nephew, they weren't closely related at all, right?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No relationship between the two can established according to those I mentioned Lewis. I wouldn’t expect one of them to get it wrong so all four seals it for me.

Two of them are sadly no longer with us. Debra occasionally posts but Roger is a regular so I don’t know if he’ll see the thread and would want to add something? I don’t know if it’s all possible that there might have been some connection between the two which the records don’t show (I’m not a genealogist)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just been told that another Charles Cutbush, who its believed was the son of Supt Cutbush, was incarcerated in Cane Hill Lunatic Asylum in 1908.

[Lewis C]

No relationship between the two can established according to those I mentioned Lewis. I wouldn’t expect one of them to get it wrong so all four seals it for me.

Two of them are sadly no longer with us. Debra occasionally posts but Roger is a regular so I don’t know if he’ll see the thread and would want to add something? I don’t know if it’s all possible that there might have been some connection between the two which the records don’t show (I’m not a genealogist)

Thanks, Herlock.

It would have to be a fairly close relationship to be significant, close enough that they were aware of it at the time. They would have been distantly related, both probably having William the Conquerer and Alfred the Great as ancestors, and probably having a far closer relationship than what those common ancestries would indicate. Maybe for the purposes of this case, Macnaghten thinking that they were related is significant even though he was mistaken.

[Abby Normal]

I just find it a bit of strange one Tani. Maybe I’ll have a read round on the subject as it’s been a while.

hi herlock
do we know why mm discounted cutbush? does he give reasons?

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi herlock
do we know why mm discounted cutbush? does he give reasons?

Hi Abby,

In the MM he says that little reliance can be placed on his mother and aunt because they were of an excitable disposition but I’d suggest that would hardly have been surprising given that they lived with someone like Cutbush. Also that the knife found on him was purchased two years after the murder which is weak to say the least. It’s certainly true that that knife was purchased whilst he was on the run but it doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have owned a knife prior to that. He also adds this:

”The statement, too, that Cutbush "spent a portion of the day in making rough drawings of the bodies of women, and of their mutilation," is wholly based on the fact that two drawings of women in indecent postures were found torn up in his room. The head and body of one had been cut from some old 'fashion plate', and legs were added and made to represent naked thighs and pink stockings.”

Why would we assume that he would have retained every sketch that he’d made over a period of time?

He also said:

”The statement in the issue of 15th Feb. that a man in a light overcoat had been seen talking to the woman, whose dismembered torso was found in Pinchin St, (and that a light overcoat was among the things discovered in Cutbushs' house) is hopelessly incorrect.”

Old Mac does appear keen to dismiss Cutbush.

[The Rookie Detective]

Is there a scenario whereby MacNagthen incorrectly believed that Cutbush was related to Chief Superintendent Cutbush?

Hence the bid to try and push Cutbush out of the limelight, by submitting a random list of (arguably) nonsense suspects?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is there a scenario whereby MacNagthen incorrectly believed that Cutbush was related to Chief Superintendent Cutbush?

Hence the bid to try and push Cutbush out of the limelight, by submitting a random list of (arguably) nonsense suspects?

I suppose that the likeliest explanation is the most prosaic one Chris; which is often the case. That someone, for whatever reason had thought or suspected a relationship between the two and Macnaghten had heard this and assumed it true. And between 1891 and 1894 it hadn’t been mentioned again and so no one had any reason to find out the truth. Then when The Sun articles appeared and Mac wrote his Memorandum he just repeated what he’d heard three years previously.

Of course, just because I can’t think of a better explanation it doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be one. Macnaghten can’t have had any reason to invent this ‘relationship’ though.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

In the MM he says that little reliance can be placed on his mother and aunt because they were of an excitable disposition but I’d suggest that would hardly have been surprising given that they lived with someone like Cutbush. Also that the knife found on him was purchased two years after the murder which is weak to say the least. It’s certainly true that that knife was purchased whilst he was on the run but it doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have owned a knife prior to that. He also adds this:

”The statement, too, that Cutbush "spent a portion of the day in making rough drawings of the bodies of women, and of their mutilation," is wholly based on the fact that two drawings of women in indecent postures were found torn up in his room. The head and body of one had been cut from some old 'fashion plate', and legs were added and made to represent naked thighs and pink stockings.”

Why would we assume that he would have retained every sketch that he’d made over a period of time?

He also said:

”The statement in the issue of 15th Feb. that a man in a light overcoat had been seen talking to the woman, whose dismembered torso was found in Pinchin St, (and that a light overcoat was among the things discovered in Cutbushs' house) is hopelessly incorrect.”

Old Mac does appear keen to dismiss Cutbush.

thanks, dosnt sound like much if any reason to dismiss him.