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.

[mklhawley]

Hi, Mike the Mailman passing along the rebuttal to the rebuttal by the Hainsworths.


Thanks Debs for your kind words of support, they are as considerate as they are courageous.

We also appreciate that Lewis C and The Rookie Detective are trying to engage in civil debate and so we will reply in kind.

Everything below is backed up by fragmentary sources, but our theory is the only one to create a throughline which leaves no loose ends.

As new sources are discovered, they may put a big dent in our theory. That's the way it goes with history as a science.

We would also point out that not only has that not happened, but that the recent discovery of George Sims' "Dagonet" column from August 24, 1913 - one of the most important sources ever found about this subject by, separately, R. J. Palmer and David Barat - provided spectacular confimation of our 'case disguised' interpretation.

For example, it proved our long-standing contetiuon that Jack Littlechild initiated the correspndence with Sims about Tumblety, because of being perplexed by a column by the famous writer claiming a certain rich, reclusive gentile who committed suicide is the solution; that clearly Sims, along with Macnaghten, were the originators of the plot of "The Lodger"; that Sims and Mac knew Druitt was a lodger in Blackheath; that Druitt had been young, handsome, with sketchy medical credentials and had left the school under a cloud due to his HETEROsexual attentions to a woman. We had also long postulated that Sims knew Druitt had escaped from an asylum, but this was the first source discovered where he explicitly claims knowledge of such a pivotal event.

Rebuttal to the rebuttal:

The key to understanding Macnaghten is to examine all of the literature: by him, about him, and on his behalf, otherwise individual sources make no sense as they were prepared for a specific audience for a specific reason due to a specific pressure.

There is nothing unusual about such a process of historical analysis. Most historical figures indulge in truth, at times, but not necessarily the whole truth, along with outright self-serving decpetions.

Pity future historians - assuming there are any - trying to fathom President Trump's mind and motivations when he is always 'on', e.g. projecting his impression of Rodney Dangerfield's rich, rude, slob/huckster, Al Czervic, in "Caddyshack" (1980).

It has been raised by the previously mentioned posters as to why if Mac - rightly or wrongly - was a fervent believer in Druitt's guilty, why in both versions of his report does he pointedly give such prominence to suspects "Kosminski" and Michael Ostrog. Good question. We too pondered this for years.

This is our answer; our interpretation based on the best 360 degree examination we can do of this historical figure. Could we be wrong? Of course.

Macnaghten HAD to list other suspects because if he left it at just Druitt over Cutbush it gives the game away. What game? That Druitt is his solution, not suspect. If that's the case how come nobody else at Scotland Yard is aware of this so-called 'solution'?? Because nobody at the Yard but Macnaghten knew about Druitt.

It would spill out that Macnaghten had met the Druitt family and had orchestrated a benign cover-up to protect that prominent family - and thus protect the name of his close pal, Col. Vivian Majendie, a famous hero, who's step-niece had not only married into the Druitt clan, Isabel MAJENDIE Hill was the wife of the Reverend Charles Druitt who had taken Montague's confession, aconfession who's incriminating details Macnaghten had sadly confirmed as authentic.

That same Dorset, Anglican clergyman believed he must reveal the truth by no later than the anniversary of Montie's burial (Jan 1899) as that was the killer's price.

But vicar Charles had a delicate temperament negtaively complimented by delicate health. If he felt the authorities were about to arrest or publicly accuse the wrong man - e.g. "The Jobber" in Broadmoor - he could feel it his moral/clerical duty to go public early.

Such an action would be a living nightmare for Macnaghten (who would be fired - again! - for keeping the Druitts' ghastly secret to himself); and for the Druitts who would be avoided on the streets by ex-friends and neighbours like Typhus carriers; and for Col Majendie who's integrity would be questioned as to what he knew about Druitt, when he knew it and what he didn't do about it. All of them were Tories and upper crust (albeit of the professional/managerial class) and so the salivating Liberal tabloids would happily crucify the lot. They could also expect no help from the government as the Liberals were in power, having won the election in 1892.

In both reports, one for the Home Sec. and one for the Yard's file, a desperate Macnaghten had to give the following false impressions: Druitt, "Kosminski" and Ostrog were all major suspects in 1888 (not true); but there was a lack of hard evidence to arrest any of them (not true, as they were not about to be arrested); Cutbush is the nephew, really defacto son of a respectable policeman and the Yard had simply avoided giving much creedence to his nephew as "The Ripper" because his crimes were different and the other three from 1888 are much more likely to be the culprit. The Yard was simply being sensitive and compassionate (Mac's signature virtues) about this unfortunate, familial connection (not true as they were not related).

Then came the thorniest problem - what to commit to the reports about M. J. Druitt who really was "Jack the Ripper"??

The talented young barister had ended up on a very long list of possible 'Jacks' because he had been arrested in 1887 for stabbing an East End sex worker which he fulsomely denied. She had dropped the accusation and so this nephew of the late, still famous Dr. Robert Druitt had wriggled out of a potentially damaging scandal. By the time Macnaghten came on the Force in mid-1889 he already knew from either Majendie, or cricketing circles, that Montague - a very promising bowler, Mac the cricket tragic would have lamented who had played alongside W. G. Grace! - had drowned himself in the Thames just days after having been placed in a plush, private asylum in Chiswick (the river was mere meters away). From 1889 to 1891, Macnaghten would have dismissed Druitt as a serious suspect because the man had been an English gentleman (Winchester, Oxford, Lord's Cricket Ground!!) and he had an iron-clad alibi - being dead - as his tragic suicide predated other "Ripper" murders of "fallen women" (Rose Mylett, Alice McKenzie, Frances Coles, maybe the Thames torso?) so at least the Druitts and Majendies were in the clear on that front.

Then M.P. and Old Etonian (sent down!) Henry Farquharson had shot off his mouth in London in early 1891 after being briefed, in camera, by an anguished Isabella Druitt, Dr Robert's widow, Rev Charles' mother and Montie's aunt - the utter bounder. The family, terrified Tom Sadler might hang for their member's heinous 1888 crimes, told the truth to Majendie and he brought in "Good Old Mac" who without hestitation acted as a discreet, affable gentleman and promptly covered it all up to protect the impeccable reputations of all concerned.

But now, in early '94, the big chicken might be coming home to roost. Mac felt he had to get ahead of the narrative, ahead of the scandal that might be about to break thanks to a conscience-stricken vicar. For the 'draft' that would be utilised in the House of Commons by the Home Sec. he helped the Druitt family by muting their secret (they had only suspected due to an allegation of "sexual insanity" obviously springing from the 1887 accusation) and concealing Montague through misdirection (he had been 31, not 41, and "at one time a surgeon" but who had never graduated). Mac also helped Scotland Yard by his claiming that after much consideration he, Macnaghten, felt the other two - the Polish masturbator and the Russian deadbeat - could be "exonerated", but not the middle-aged, English, gentile doctor. In another gamble Macnaghten backdated what was known about Druitt, but only by him in 1891, back into 1888.

In a truly shameless pivot regarding the murders subsequent to Druitt's drowning, he claims they were probably by this Tom Sadler. This shows he composed the document after Sadler's arrest for Coles' murder, but before the sailor was embrassingly exonerated. Before that happened, Macnaghten created one of the greatest myths about the Whitechapel Murders which would prove to be virtually indestructible, even though it is one of his most blatant deceptions. He claimed that C.I.D. knew AT THE TIME that Mary Jane Kelly was this particular fiend's final victim. How? Because whomever committed such an atrocity could no longer function as a plausible human being; either they would immediately kill themselves or be so obviously insensible their relations would have no choice but to swiftly have them sectioned. Thus both of these criteria were lies about Druitt, although the latter probably had made manic confession which saw him placed, briefly, in a French asylum and then an English one, an even briefer sojourn.

Then if Rev Charles made public the truth about his deceased cousin, Macnaghten could plead with the Commissioner that had he had blunted criticism of C.I.D. by having Asquith announce that the lunatic in Broadmoor was known to the police, and not "The Ripper", and that they had strong suspicions regarding M. J. Druitt but in 1888 there was no hard evidence against this nephew of Dr Druitt. Yet he Mac, had zeroed in on the real maniac, so please don't sack me!?

The Cutbush story, however, never escalated. Rev Charles kept his mouth shut (until Jan 1899). Nonetheless after what he must have regarded as a "bloody close run thing" Macnaghten rewrote another version for the official file - not that anybody knew it was sitting there accept him. But Druitt's name was now on file with Mac careful to change places with the drutits about ho was certain as to his guilt. And this was the truth: the family "believed" he was "Jack the Ripper", not suspected.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi, Mike the Mailman passing along the rebuttal to the rebuttal by the Hainsworths.


Thanks Debs for your kind words of support, they are as considerate as they are courageous.

We also appreciate that Lewis C and The Rookie Detective are trying to engage in civil debate and so we will reply in kind.

Everything below is backed up by fragmentary sources, but our theory is the only one to create a throughline which leaves no loose ends.

As new sources are discovered, they may put a big dent in our theory. That's the way it goes with history as a science.

We would also point out that not only has that not happened, but that the recent discovery of George Sims' "Dagonet" column from August 24, 1913 - one of the most important sources ever found about this subject by, separately, R. J. Palmer and David Barat - provided spectacular confimation of our 'case disguised' interpretation.

For example, it proved our long-standing contetiuon that Jack Littlechild initiated the correspndence with Sims about Tumblety, because of being perplexed by a column by the famous writer claiming a certain rich, reclusive gentile who committed suicide is the solution; that clearly Sims, along with Macnaghten, were the originators of the plot of "The Lodger"; that Sims and Mac knew Druitt was a lodger in Blackheath; that Druitt had been young, handsome, with sketchy medical credentials and had left the school under a cloud due to his HETEROsexual attentions to a woman. We had also long postulated that Sims knew Druitt had escaped from an asylum, but this was the first source discovered where he explicitly claims knowledge of such a pivotal event.

Rebuttal to the rebuttal:

The key to understanding Macnaghten is to examine all of the literature: by him, about him, and on his behalf, otherwise individual sources make no sense as they were prepared for a specific audience for a specific reason due to a specific pressure.

There is nothing unusual about such a process of historical analysis. Most historical figures indulge in truth, at times, but not necessarily the whole truth, along with outright self-serving decpetions.

Pity future historians - assuming there are any - trying to fathom President Trump's mind and motivations when he is always 'on', e.g. projecting his impression of Rodney Dangerfield's rich, rude, slob/huckster, Al Czervic, in "Caddyshack" (1980).

It has been raised by the previously mentioned posters as to why if Mac - rightly or wrongly - was a fervent believer in Druitt's guilty, why in both versions of his report does he pointedly give such prominence to suspects "Kosminski" and Michael Ostrog. Good question. We too pondered this for years.

This is our answer; our interpretation based on the best 360 degree examination we can do of this historical figure. Could we be wrong? Of course.

Macnaghten HAD to list other suspects because if he left it at just Druitt over Cutbush it gives the game away. What game? That Druitt is his solution, not suspect. If that's the case how come nobody else at Scotland Yard is aware of this so-called 'solution'?? Because nobody at the Yard but Macnaghten knew about Druitt.

It would spill out that Macnaghten had met the Druitt family and had orchestrated a benign cover-up to protect that prominent family - and thus protect the name of his close pal, Col. Vivian Majendie, a famous hero, who's step-niece had not only married into the Druitt clan, Isabel MAJENDIE Hill was the wife of the Reverend Charles Druitt who had taken Montague's confession, aconfession who's incriminating details Macnaghten had sadly confirmed as authentic.

That same Dorset, Anglican clergyman believed he must reveal the truth by no later than the anniversary of Montie's burial (Jan 1899) as that was the killer's price.

But vicar Charles had a delicate temperament negtaively complimented by delicate health. If he felt the authorities were about to arrest or publicly accuse the wrong man - e.g. "The Jobber" in Broadmoor - he could feel it his moral/clerical duty to go public early.

Such an action would be a living nightmare for Macnaghten (who would be fired - again! - for keeping the Druitts' ghastly secret to himself); and for the Druitts who would be avoided on the streets by ex-friends and neighbours like Typhus carriers; and for Col Majendie who's integrity would be questioned as to what he knew about Druitt, when he knew it and what he didn't do about it. All of them were Tories and upper crust (albeit of the professional/managerial class) and so the salivating Liberal tabloids would happily crucify the lot. They could also expect no help from the government as the Liberals were in power, having won the election in 1892.

In both reports, one for the Home Sec. and one for the Yard's file, a desperate Macnaghten had to give the following false impressions: Druitt, "Kosminski" and Ostrog were all major suspects in 1888 (not true); but there was a lack of hard evidence to arrest any of them (not true, as they were not about to be arrested); Cutbush is the nephew, really defacto son of a respectable policeman and the Yard had simply avoided giving much creedence to his nephew as "The Ripper" because his crimes were different and the other three from 1888 are much more likely to be the culprit. The Yard was simply being sensitive and compassionate (Mac's signature virtues) about this unfortunate, familial connection (not true as they were not related).

Then came the thorniest problem - what to commit to the reports about M. J. Druitt who really was "Jack the Ripper"??

The talented young barister had ended up on a very long list of possible 'Jacks' because he had been arrested in 1887 for stabbing an East End sex worker which he fulsomely denied. She had dropped the accusation and so this nephew of the late, still famous Dr. Robert Druitt had wriggled out of a potentially damaging scandal. By the time Macnaghten came on the Force in mid-1889 he already knew from either Majendie, or cricketing circles, that Montague - a very promising bowler, Mac the cricket tragic would have lamented who had played alongside W. G. Grace! - had drowned himself in the Thames just days after having been placed in a plush, private asylum in Chiswick (the river was mere meters away). From 1889 to 1891, Macnaghten would have dismissed Druitt as a serious suspect because the man had been an English gentleman (Winchester, Oxford, Lord's Cricket Ground!!) and he had an iron-clad alibi - being dead - as his tragic suicide predated other "Ripper" murders of "fallen women" (Rose Mylett, Alice McKenzie, Frances Coles, maybe the Thames torso?) so at least the Druitts and Majendies were in the clear on that front.

Then M.P. and Old Etonian (sent down!) Henry Farquharson had shot off his mouth in London in early 1891 after being briefed, in camera, by an anguished Isabella Druitt, Dr Robert's widow, Rev Charles' mother and Montie's aunt - the utter bounder. The family, terrified Tom Sadler might hang for their member's heinous 1888 crimes, told the truth to Majendie and he brought in "Good Old Mac" who without hestitation acted as a discreet, affable gentleman and promptly covered it all up to protect the impeccable reputations of all concerned.

But now, in early '94, the big chicken might be coming home to roost. Mac felt he had to get ahead of the narrative, ahead of the scandal that might be about to break thanks to a conscience-stricken vicar. For the 'draft' that would be utilised in the House of Commons by the Home Sec. he helped the Druitt family by muting their secret (they had only suspected due to an allegation of "sexual insanity" obviously springing from the 1887 accusation) and concealing Montague through misdirection (he had been 31, not 41, and "at one time a surgeon" but who had never graduated). Mac also helped Scotland Yard by his claiming that after much consideration he, Macnaghten, felt the other two - the Polish masturbator and the Russian deadbeat - could be "exonerated", but not the middle-aged, English, gentile doctor. In another gamble Macnaghten backdated what was known about Druitt, but only by him in 1891, back into 1888.

In a truly shameless pivot regarding the murders subsequent to Druitt's drowning, he claims they were probably by this Tom Sadler. This shows he composed the document after Sadler's arrest for Coles' murder, but before the sailor was embrassingly exonerated. Before that happened, Macnaghten created one of the greatest myths about the Whitechapel Murders which would prove to be virtually indestructible, even though it is one of his most blatant deceptions. He claimed that C.I.D. knew AT THE TIME that Mary Jane Kelly was this particular fiend's final victim. How? Because whomever committed such an atrocity could no longer function as a plausible human being; either they would immediately kill themselves or be so obviously insensible their relations would have no choice but to swiftly have them sectioned. Thus both of these criteria were lies about Druitt, although the latter probably had made manic confession which saw him placed, briefly, in a French asylum and then an English one, an even briefer sojourn.

Then if Rev Charles made public the truth about his deceased cousin, Macnaghten could plead with the Commissioner that had he had blunted criticism of C.I.D. by having Asquith announce that the lunatic in Broadmoor was known to the police, and not "The Ripper", and that they had strong suspicions regarding M. J. Druitt but in 1888 there was no hard evidence against this nephew of Dr Druitt. Yet he Mac, had zeroed in on the real maniac, so please don't sack me!?

The Cutbush story, however, never escalated. Rev Charles kept his mouth shut (until Jan 1899). Nonetheless after what he must have regarded as a "bloody close run thing" Macnaghten rewrote another version for the official file - not that anybody knew it was sitting there accept him. But Druitt's name was now on file with Mac careful to change places with the drutits about ho was certain as to his guilt. And this was the truth: the family "believed" he was "Jack the Ripper", not suspected.

An excellent post indeed.

While I do not agree with the conclusions reached by this particular conspiracy theory, I also appreciate its reciprocal nature and the effort involved to reaffirm the argument supporting Druitt as the Ripper.

It is clear from the theory that MacNagthen was complicit in the cover up to conceal the Ripper's identity in favour of protecting some very powerful and influential people.

If that is indeed the case (and I don't believe it is) then it could be argued that MacNagthen should have found himself on the end of a noose.

To say that it paints MacNagthen in a bad light, is an understatement.


But let's look at this from a completely different angle; a more pragmatic approach as it were.

Where was Druitt in the few minutes leading up to him butchering Eddowes in Mitre Square?

It's unlikely he came from the East, as the couple seen by Lawrende and Co. were seen standing at the entrance to the Eastern approach into the square.

Druitt being the killer then exonerates the man seen by Lawrende; as he clearly wasn't Druitt.


We then have the man seen by Long who was standing very close to the entrance to Hanbury Street and talking to a woman alleged to have been Chapman.

This man's description again doesn't fit with Druitt, and so the man seen by Long is also exonerated.

The same question therefore applies; where was Druitt at the time the couple were seen by Long standing outside 29 Hanbury St? (or close to it)


In Druiit being the Ripper, both the men seen by Lawrende and Long (respectively) are thus ruled out as the killer, because neither resemble Druitt.

That is despite the man seen by Long and the man seen by Lawrende bearing a relatively close resemblance.


So we have a choice...


Do we favour a conspiracy theory that provides a means of explanation as to how MacNagthen got things so wrong with his faux list of "suspects?"

Or do we favour the idea that the man seen by Lawrende and the man seen by Long, resembled each other enough to consider the possibility that THIS man was the real Ripper?

All of the most intricate conspiracy theories fall into the same trap; they ignore the practical aspects of the case in favour of ideology that works in opposition of the known facts.

Of course, there's always going to be those who rule out Long and Lawrende as reliable witnesses.

But why?

Well perhaps they're inconvenient for certain favoured suspects like Druitt.

But the fact remains that both Long and Lawrende were there in person, and both at times very close to the kill times for both Eddowes and Chapman respectively.

The man with the dark complexion and of "Jewish" appearance clearly not being anywhere close to the description of Druitt.

In terms of the relatively intricate conspiracy theory put forward in this thread in support of Druitt and MacNagthen; it really doesn't come anywhere close to explaining the basics.

The truth often lies in the simplicity of it all, and when we strip away the subjective opinions of bias; and often incompetent police personnel, we start to see the case for what it truly is; something that need not be so complex.

We have to start with the murders themselves and then work backwards, rather than try and provide intricate ideological and theoretical solutions that serve to avoid the fundermental basics of the case.


Who was the man seen by Long?

Who was the man seen by Lawrende?

Could they have been the same man?

If so, could he have been the Ripper?

If so, who does the killer resemble from our potential pool of known suspects?

THESE are the questions that need to be answered.


The focus on MacNagthen and Druitt by proxy, is yet another distraction that only supports those who favour procrastination over progress.

The fact that all of the most senior police officials all favoured different suspects, tells us all we need to know about our seemingly over reliance on the men who achieved nothing but utter failure in their duty to catch the killer.

And it's precisely the likes of MacNaghten and Anderson who provide nothing in the way of progressive value to the case.

They were more concerned about their self-preservation than anything else. And because of their bureaucratic rhetoric, those innocent women who were butchered by one of the most evil men to ever have walked the earth, never really stood a chance.

Druitt has always felt like the last bastion of an old-skool ideology that serves to romanticise the case.

But I see nothing romantic about it


In reality, the case is guttural, visceral and sickening to its core.

Druitt's candidacy as the Ripper belongs on the top of that dusty shelf, in the library that nobody ever visits.