Why did Macnaghten deny Cutbush as a serious suspect?

[Natalie Severn]

You claimed that "Cutbush had crept up behind his doctor, drawn a gun on him and threatened to kill him". If you look at the Sun article you'll see where you've got muddled. The story in the Sun - if there is any truth at all in it - relates to someone else and there is no mention of a gun or a threat to kill the person - other than a suspicion in that person's own mind.

OK---the quote ,in The Sun ,is from a man with the initials D.G.- a person working in a legal office and having Cutbush arriving on several occasions wanting to discuss shooting Dr---[Brooks?]

"One day I was very busy with some papers when I suddenly realised somebody had silently and stealthily slid into the office,taken up a stand behind me. I felt at once that he was going to assault and possibly murder me,so I sprang up and faced him.It was Cutbush and so I closed with him and ran out of the office".
This passage directly follows on from another similar incident entitled ,"the story of SY".
" Cutbush called on me in 1891 and asked me to lend him a pistol to shoot Dr____.I have learnt from Mr DG that Cutbush was well known at the office and the police have reason to believe he is Jack the Ripper.This appears to be founded on a statement made by one person in a position to know that Cutbush,on several occasions late at night was seen with his left sleeve covered in blood;and the theory of the authorities was that the Whitechapel murders were done by a left handed man.

So there was a "threat to murder Dr____"
as well as a suspected intention to make a murderous assault on Mr DG.

Now Macnaghten in his memorandum states:

"he threatened to shoot Dr Brooks of Westminster Bridge Road for having supplied him with bad medicines"

and The Sun discusses the lead up to this threat to shoot a doctor --as above ---and goes on to describe an employee with the initials DG ,having had Cutbush creep up behind him and cause DG such alarm that he fled from the office.

I would still call it a cross reference even though you are correct in saying I was thinking of the DG incident.

Now can you do me the courtesy,Chris, of providing some "evidence" about the Sun"s dishonesty or reputation for dishonesty in reporting in 1888 or at any other time?

Thankyou

[Cap'n Jack]

Your wish, Robert, my command.

[Chris]

Due respect and all that shite, Chris, but I think Robert was expecting a reply from you on the differing sentencing policies employed in the Cutbush and Colicitt cases.

In what respect?

[Cap'n Jack]

Ben, obviously you never had an uncle who was in charge of the murder investigation in which you were the major suspect. Thomas did.
This does influence long and tedious proceedings.

[Chris]

Natalie

To be clear - when you said "Cutbush had crept up behind his doctor, drawn a gun on him and threatened to kill him", you had, as I said, got your information muddled. In fact, there is no allegation - even on the Sun's part - that Cutbush drew a gun on his doctor or anyone else.

And I'm sorry, but I don't have time to repeat the points I have already made - today and earlier - about the accuracy of the Sun articles. You can believe what they say if you like, but you shouldn't be surprised if others are more sceptical.

[Robert]

Thanks AP.

Chris, there seems to have been some discretion as to who was sent to Broadmoor and who wasn't. On top of that, we seem to have patients being released from Broadmoor, or transferred to other asylums and then released, and even I think sent to Broadmoor when they'd committed crimes such as embezzlement. There was a case in 1894 where the Treasury directed the magistrate to remove a prisoner to Broadmoor, and the prisoner's counsel asked, unsuccessfully, that he be discharged since he had not been convicted of an offence and the prosecution (the Treasury) hadn't turned up in court to pursue the case. I suspect that during the time that Thomas was being observed by Dr Gilbert at Holloway, his behaviour exhibited unmistakeable signs that he was a threat to the safety of himself or others. Certainly he is described as dangerous in 1891 after his admission to Broadmoor.

[Natalie Severn]

Do chill out Chris.My last post was quite clear .
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Robert,
Did you know that psycopaths often "embezzle" and leave a trail of chaos in financial matters?It was probably a precaution until they discovered whether the person was just a wideboy or a real psychopath.

[Robert]

Hi Nats

It's something I must do, read up on the history of criminal lunacy. At the moment, I suspect that the politicians had grappled with these issues and, as usually happens with anything they grapple with, found it all quite beyond them.

[Chris]

Do chill out Chris.My last post was quite clear .

I didn't think it was at all clear from your last post that the part about Cutbush drawing a gun on his doctor and threatening his life was a mistake. That's what I wanted to clarify.

And I am perfectly "chilled", thanks. I just think it's important to get the facts straight.

[Chris]

I suspect that during the time that Thomas was being observed by Dr Gilbert at Holloway, his behaviour exhibited unmistakeable signs that he was a threat to the safety of himself or others. Certainly he is described as dangerous in 1891 after his admission to Broadmoor.

I suppose that if he had (or was believed to have) wounded someone with a knife, that would be sufficient evidence that he was dangerous to others, even if the wound wasn't a serious one.

I still don't really understand why such importance seems to be attached to this question. In itself it doesn't seem to tell us much at all. Now if his records told us that he fantasised about murdering and mutilating women, that might be different ...

PS Am I the only one who can't work out which in which murder investigation Thomas Cutbush was the major suspect, or who was his uncle in charge of that investigation?

[Roy Corduroy]

minutiae

It would appear that Race had nursed this idea since he arrested Cutbush in 1891 and had kept up with Cutbush's state in the asylum. It would also appear that Race had kept Cutbush's knife as 'evidence'. ...He must have been the Sun's early informant...

But the memo didn't say Race.

The Memo:

"...other inaccuracies and misleading statements made by 'The Sun'. ...the writer has in his possession a facsimile of the knife with which the murders were committed. This knife (which for some unexplained reason has, for the last 3 years, been kept by Inspector Hale, instead of being sent to Prisoner's Property Store) was traced...

So Macnaghten got that part wrong. Maybe.

To me, Insp. Race is important. Without his suspicions we are not having this conversation, and there was no memo. (Ponder that..all those cricket matches out the window)

Roy

[Chris]

But the memo didn't say Race.

The Memo:

"...other inaccuracies and misleading statements made by 'The Sun'. ...the writer has in his possession a facsimile of the knife with which the murders were committed. This knife (which for some unexplained reason has, for the last 3 years, been kept by Inspector Hale, instead of being sent to Prisoner's Property Store) was traced...

So Macnaghten got that part wrong. Maybe.

In that transcript, "Hale" is a misreading for "Race" (though a fairly understandable one). That's clear from the image of the original -http://www.casebook.org/images/memo.pdf - compare the initial with the "R" of "Westminster Bridge Rd" on the following page.

[Roy Corduroy]

Thank you Chris. Yes I see the handwritten name Race.

In the memo, two other officers are named as "tracing the antecedants" of Cutbush. (1) P. S. McCarthy CID, who "worked in Whitechapel at the time of the murders." Do we know more about him? (2) Ch Insp (now Supr) Chris/Chis/Chism (sp?) or is that Chisholm? A Ch Insp Chisholm is in a news report under the title

Police Intelligence
Lambeth

In a news report on Page 4 here.

Could this be the officer referred to in the memo?

Roy

[White-Knight]

Chisholm..he was the plod in Minder!
blimey, he must have had a long career!
seriouly though, good luck with them pesky coppers!

Chris, I have had the same concerns with the Sun but one can apply too modern an ear ..we are a sophisticated media audience these days.you may have been duped by its sensational tone..rather than so-called Cutbushians being duped by its reports.. you are right to demand more cross reference though, Mac does give some, but not much and he too accuses them of sensationalism .. the 'drawings' a good and pointed example. I don't take the Sun as gospel but I haven't seen much 'proof' it is far wide either,and I wouldn't trust old macca further than I could throw him, he was either daft, crafty or a bit of both to put those 3 in front of Tom, who was at the very least on nodding terms with knife crime.

escalation, de-escalation...its all part of the paranoid cycle..proves, disproves nothing. except Mac was no psychologist.


Robert..do tell!


WK.