Cutbush and Cutbush?

[Debra A]

Thanks for that Debra, that’s an interesting piece of information. Two related, Met Police Cutbush’s both committing suicide, the first of them was for years assumed to have been related to an asylum inmate believed by some to have been the ripper. I’m assuming that there could be no connection of any kind between Thomas and the seedsmen/nurserymen Cutbush’s? Cutbush being a fitting name of course.

Hi Herlock,

No. No relationship between Thomas Hayne Cutbush or the Highgate Cutbush family.

Thomas was first named in connection with the Whitechapel murders in the 1891 reporting of his "South London stabbing" crimes. Interestingly, those 1891 reports described his mother as a widow. We know that in his '1894' memo that Macnaghten also makes that same mistake, saying Thomas's father was dead. Especially odd considering that Antipodean press in 1894 were reporting that the man recently named as JTR was the son of a New Zealand colonist. The memo can't date to 1894. Can it?!

Another thing I noticed in the 1891 reports that I have mentioned before (sometimes I bore myself!) was that Edwin Collicott, a man charged with jabbing women in January 1891, prior to suspicion about Cutbush, was released on the sureties of his father and uncle (both men apparently wealthy and influential)... surely Macnaghten wasn't a bit slap dash and wrote his memo after or using the 1891 newspaper reports?! Or going further, conflating the two cases he warned others not to?

Off topic but another for the "councidences" thread- Charles Stokes Cutbush (son of Supt. Charles Henry) went on in later years to live at Aldebert Terrace, Edwin Collicotts 1891 address.

[Debra A]

Nice to get Jonathan and Christine Hainsworth's perspective on this. Macnaghten's memo is complicated, difficult to make sense of in context and open to many interpretations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

No. No relationship between Thomas Hayne Cutbush or the Highgate Cutbush family.

Thomas was first named in connection with the Whitechapel murders in the 1891 reporting of his "South London stabbing" crimes. Interestingly, those 1891 reports described his mother as a widow. We know that in his '1894' memo that Macnaghten also makes that same mistake, saying Thomas's father was dead. Especially odd considering that Antipodean press in 1894 were reporting that the man recently named as JTR was the son of a New Zealand colonist. The memo can't date to 1894. Can it?!

Another thing I noticed in the 1891 reports that I have mentioned before (sometimes I bore myself!) was that Edwin Collicott, a man charged with jabbing women in January 1891, prior to suspicion about Cutbush, was released on the sureties of his father and uncle (both men apparently wealthy and influential)... surely Macnaghten wasn't a bit slap dash and wrote his memo after or using the 1891 newspaper reports?! Or going further, conflating the two cases he warned others not to?

Off topic but another for the "councidences" thread- Charles Stokes Cutbush (son of Supt. Charles Henry) went on in later years to live at Aldebert Terrace, Edwin Collicotts 1891 address.

Hi Debra,

If the articles had actually named Cutbush then perhaps it might have been suggested that he was trying to shield her from the stigma of being abandoned but of course that would pale next to an accusation of being the mother of Jack the Ripper. A miscommunication perhaps?

On the subject of Collicott, I read an old Ripperana article the other day, I don’t know if you’ve read this? I made a few notes:



Ripperana #19, January 1997, Colocitt by Nick Connell


In 1898 the Police Review, writing about the arrest of Cutbush said:

“…that an innocent young man was indicted at Surrey Sessions but was ultimately discharged.”


Four years earlier Macnaghten had said:

“…a man named Colicott was arrested, but was arrested owing to faulty identification.”


The only person that this could be was Edwin Colocitt who surrendered his bail on four charges of malicious wounding and assault (21.2.91). The crimes took place in Clapham and Brixton at around 9.30pm each night. A man followed a woman and stabbed her in the lower back and then ran away. He was tried at Newington where the police had warned locals to be on their guard.

On 20.2.91 a furniture dealer called Charles Myers had see him outside his shop obstructing women and touching the backs of several of them. He followed him and saw him make three thrusts to the lower back of one woman. Myers grabbed him by the wrist but Colocitt made so much noise that a crowd attacked Myers and forced him to release him. He was caught further on by a Constable though.


Colocitt’s Lawyer said that:

“…several other ladies who had been assaulted in a similar manner had failed to identify him.”

Despite this, and the fact he had a ‘weak intellect’ due to a fall as a baby, the jury found him guilty. By this time Thomas Cutbush had been caught and Colocitt’s Lawyer reminded the jury of this with the possibility being the Cutbush was the real culprit. Sentencing was postponed.

Two days later the Judge:

“…accepted the father’s and uncle’s sureties each in £100, with a proviso that a competent attendant should be engaged, who would be responsible for the prisoner’s safe conduct. The father also engaged to exercise such care and supervision over the prisoner as to protect the public from any possibility of any repetition of the offence.”


The above might explain why the Police Review stated that the suspect had been discharged as innocent.

Edwin Colocitt was the only man indicted at the Surrey Sessions at this time of this type of crime in this area. Colocitt has to be the man that Macnaghten spoke of.

…..

This is according to Nick Connell of course.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

If the articles had actually named Cutbush then perhaps it might have been suggested that he was trying to shield her from the stigma of being abandoned but of course that would pale next to an accusation of being the mother of Jack the Ripper. A miscommunication perhaps?

On the subject of Collicott, I read an old Ripperana article the other day, I don’t know if you’ve read this? I made a few notes:



Ripperana #19, January 1997, Colocitt by Nick Connell


In 1898 the Police Review, writing about the arrest of Cutbush said:

“…that an innocent young man was indicted at Surrey Sessions but was ultimately discharged.”


Four years earlier Macnaghten had said:

“…a man named Colicott was arrested, but was arrested owing to faulty identification.”


The only person that this could be was Edwin Colocitt who surrendered his bail on four charges of malicious wounding and assault (21.2.91). The crimes took place in Clapham and Brixton at around 9.30pm each night. A man followed a woman and stabbed her in the lower back and then ran away. He was tried at Newington where the police had warned locals to be on their guard.

On 20.2.91 a furniture dealer called Charles Myers had see him outside his shop obstructing women and touching the backs of several of them. He followed him and saw him make three thrusts to the lower back of one woman. Myers grabbed him by the wrist but Colocitt made so much noise that a crowd attacked Myers and forced him to release him. He was caught further on by a Constable though.


Colocitt’s Lawyer said that:

“…several other ladies who had been assaulted in a similar manner had failed to identify him.”

Despite this, and the fact he had a ‘weak intellect’ due to a fall as a baby, the jury found him guilty. By this time Thomas Cutbush had been caught and Colocitt’s Lawyer reminded the jury of this with the possibility being the Cutbush was the real culprit. Sentencing was postponed.

Two days later the Judge:

“…accepted the father’s and uncle’s sureties each in £100, with a proviso that a competent attendant should be engaged, who would be responsible for the prisoner’s safe conduct. The father also engaged to exercise such care and supervision over the prisoner as to protect the public from any possibility of any repetition of the offence.”


The above might explain why the Police Review stated that the suspect had been discharged as innocent.

Edwin Colocitt was the only man indicted at the Surrey Sessions at this time of this type of crime in this area. Colocitt has to be the man that Macnaghten spoke of.

…..

This is according to Nick Connell of course.

The 1891 articles I mean do name Thomas Cutbush, Herlock. They describe his 1891 crimes, say his mother is a widow and then suggest his crimes may have something to do with the Whitechapel crimes.

Collicott was found guilty of several assaults on girls, he was positively identified at the police station by several of them and then discharged with sureties to his father and uncle (the 'uncle' being the thing I was interested in. Cutbush was branded a copycat. Cutbush was in the workhouse on 5th March the date 'his' first victim was attacked:
1891 Thursday 5 March Admitted to Newington workhouse Westmoreland Road and absconded the same day between dinner and supper time. SoBG/111/28- the same day was certified by magistrate George Leonard Tueney and Dr John Frederick Williams who examined him in the workhouse, to be a person of unsound mind, 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. This was before his supposed attack on Florence Grace Johnson on the evening of his escape from the workhouse on 5th March 1891St Saviour’s Union Copy Lunatic orders 1891

On the evening of Thursday 5th March Florence Grace Johnson was wounded by a man that ran away while in Clapham Road. Her leg had been cut. Cutbush returned home at midnight that night . The next morning he left the house again and did not return until Sunday 8th March Morning Post Tuesday 24 March 1891 Florence Grace Johnson identified Cutbush as the man who stabbed her a few days later in Peckham House Asylum. Cutbush was taken into custody at Peckham House. On 14th? March.

He was charged at Lambeth Police Court with maliciously wounding Florence Grace Johnson and attempting to maliciously wound Isabella Fraser Anderson . The attempt on Anderson was made on 7th March while Cutbush was away from home again.
These girls identified Cutbush at the asylum.

I think both men were guilty. Cutbush was on route to an asylum prior to the attack on 5th March and this is why he was judged as unfit to plead on arraignment for his crimes as he was laready judged to be violent and of unsound mind? Collicott was judged to be of weak intellect and so discharged as guilty to the care of his father and uncle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The 1891 articles I mean do name Thomas Cutbush, Herlock. They describe his 1891 crimes, say his mother is a widow and then suggest his crimes may have something to do with the Whitechapel crimes.

Collicott was found guilty of several assaults on girls, he was positively identified at the police station by several of them and then discharged with sureties to his father and uncle (the 'uncle' being the thing I was interested in. Cutbush was branded a copycat. Cutbush was in the workhouse on 5th March the date 'his' first victim was attacked:
1891 Thursday 5 March Admitted to Newington workhouse Westmoreland Road and absconded the same day between dinner and supper time. SoBG/111/28- the same day was certified by magistrate George Leonard Tueney and Dr John Frederick Williams who examined him in the workhouse, to be a person of unsound mind, 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. This was before his supposed attack on Florence Grace Johnson on the evening of his escape from the workhouse on 5th March 1891St Saviour’s Union Copy Lunatic orders 1891

On the evening of Thursday 5th March Florence Grace Johnson was wounded by a man that ran away while in Clapham Road. Her leg had been cut. Cutbush returned home at midnight that night . The next morning he left the house again and did not return until Sunday 8th March Morning Post Tuesday 24 March 1891 Florence Grace Johnson identified Cutbush as the man who stabbed her a few days later in Peckham House Asylum. Cutbush was taken into custody at Peckham House. On 14th? March.

He was charged at Lambeth Police Court with maliciously wounding Florence Grace Johnson and attempting to maliciously wound Isabella Fraser Anderson . The attempt on Anderson was made on 7th March while Cutbush was away from home again.
These girls identified Cutbush at the asylum.

I think both men were guilty. Cutbush was on route to an asylum prior to the attack on 5th March and this is why he was judged as unfit to plead on arraignment for his crimes as he was laready judged to be violent and of unsound mind? Collicott was judged to be of weak intellect and so discharged as guilty to the care of his father and uncle.

Sorry Debra, I meant that his name wasn’t mentioned in The Sun articles of 1894 that Macnaghten was responding to in his memorandum. I agree that both men were guilty though but I hadn’t read of Johnson being stabbed in the leg though.

Florence Grace Johnson: “received a wound in the lower part of her back.”

(Dr. Farr, report of the Police Court proceedings, Brixton Free Press, 21st March 1891)

[Debra A]

Thanks, Herlock. My point was that Macnaghten may not have been responding to the 1894 reports but perhaps the memo was compiled earlier after the 1891 reports where Cutbush's name was also linked to the Whitechapel murders and his mother was described as a widow. In the 1894 reports the Sun correctly mentions that Thomas's father had deserted the family, as did the 1894 Antipodean press. Only in the 1891 reports and Macnaghten's memo is Cutbush's mother named as a widow. Why?
I will have to check back about the lower leg cut. I wouldn't have plucked it from thin air so there must be at least one other newspaper that says leg cut!
It's slightly irrelevant where she was injured in the context of what I'm trying to say.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks, Herlock. My point was that Macnaghten may not have been responding to the 1894 reports but perhaps the memo was compiled earlier after the 1891 reports where Cutbush's name was also linked to the Whitechapel murders and his mother was described as a widow. In the 1894 reports the Sun correctly mentions that Thomas's father had deserted the family, as did the 1894 Antipodean press. Only in the 1891 reports and Macnaghten's memo is Cutbush's mother named as a widow. Why?
I will have to check back about the lower leg cut. I wouldn't have plucked it from thin air so there must be at least one other newspaper that says leg cut!
It's slightly irrelevant where she was injured in the context of what I'm trying to say.

Sorry for being slow Debra, I get what you’re saying now. And I’ve only had 2 beers (honest) Yes you must have seen that quote about the leg cut somewhere and it’s not as if I’ve looked at many reports because I haven’t.

The Press…giving contradictory reports…the very thought

[rjpalmer]

My point was that Macnaghten may not have been responding to the 1894 reports but perhaps the memo was compiled earlier after the 1891 reports where Cutbush's name was also linked to the Whitechapel murders and his mother was described as a widow. In the 1894 reports the Sun correctly mentions that Thomas's father had deserted the family, as did the 1894 Antipodean press. Only in the 1891 reports and Macnaghten's memo is Cutbush's mother named as a widow. Why?

It's an interesting observation. I wonder if it might be explained by Sir Mel having so little faith in The Sun's accuracy that he repeated the 1891 information about Kate being a widow (which may well have been the general belief back in the day) and ignored the Sun's version which, we now know, was accurate.

It wasn't unheard of for Scotland Yard files to contain newspaper clippings, so if Macnaghten referred to Cutbush's file in 1894 he might have reread these old reports.

As Nick Connell reported in an old issue of Ripperana, The Police Review came to believe that the arrest of Cutbush let an innocent man off the hook. This doesn't appear to be true and I don't think Macnaghten believed it, either, because he goes on to admonish The Sun for blaming Cutbush for six stabbings when he was apparentl only guilty of two in Sir Mel's mind.

[Debra A]

It's an interesting observation. I wonder if it might be explained by Sir Mel having so little faith in The Sun's accuracy that he repeated the 1891 information about Kate being a widow (which may well have been the general belief back in the day) and ignored the Sun's version which, we now know, was accurate.

It wasn't unheard of for Scotland Yard files to contain newspaper clippings, so if Macnaghten referred to Cutbush's file in 1894 he might have reread these old reports.

As Nick Connell reported in an old issue of Ripperana, The Police Review came to believe that the arrest of Cutbush let an innocent man off the hook. This doesn't appear to be true and I don't think Macnaghten believed it, either, because he goes on to admonish The Sun for blaming Cutbush for six stabbings when he was apparentl only guilty of two in Sir Mel's mind.

Thanks Roger,
Yes, I agree, I'd probably expect Macnaghten to have gone back to basics in an 1894 rebuttal of the Sun articles, and I also agree that newspaper accounts were often included in police files. So, if in 1891 there was some suspicion of Cutbush regarding what happened in 1888 (as there apparently was) would/should we expect there to be a police file on him that was full, accurate and well investigated that Macnaghten could easily access had there been a full investigation/exoneration in 1888 or 1891?

[Debra A]

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?

[mklhawley]

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

[Debra A]

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.

Thanks Mike.
Thanks Christine and Jonathan. I enjoy your posts, they sometimes make me think harder and in a different way ( my family must be able to smell burning rubber at times! )
I think your point about 'belief' is an excellent one. There are many areas of the case where we should consider what was collectively or individually 'believed' at any one time and view subsequent events and writings through that belief.
Cheers
Debs