Why did Macnaghten deny Cutbush as a serious suspect?

[Chris]

Well if you think so Chris I will spell out for you what I mean.

from page 2 of Macnaghten"s 1894 memorandum:

".....he [Cutbush] believed that people were trying to poison him[ The Sun say Cutbush accused his doctor of trying to poison him]."

"......He wrote to Lord Grimthorpe and others and also to the Treasury,complaining of a Dr Brooks of Westminster Bridge Road who he threatened to shoot for having supplied him with bad medicines."


Not muddled at all mate!

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.

[Natalie Severn]

I think you have that quite badly muddled.

Well if you think so Chris I will spell out for you what I mean.

from page 2 of Macnaghten"s 1894 memorandum:

".....he [Cutbush] believed that people were trying to poison him[ The Sun say Cutbush accused his doctor of trying to poison him]."

"......He wrote to Lord Grimthorpe and others and also to the Treasury,complaining of a Dr Brooks of Westminster Bridge Road who he threatened to shoot for having supplied him with bad medicines."


Not muddled at all mate!

[Chris]

It's complicated. Thomas may have committed a crime, but he was not convicted of anything, and his solicitor averred that he could have established his client's innocence, given the chance. Thomas was, however, dangerous.

Yes - strictly I should have said Cutbush was indicted on a criminal charge. But my point was that the difference between him and Aaron Kozminski is that the latter wasn't committed as a result of any criminal charge.

[Natalie Severn]

Where the Napper/Cutbush comparison falls short, in my view, is Cutbush's failure to conform to the process of escalation which clearly characterized Napper's crimes. The Green Chain rapes occured before the stabbing of Rachel Nickell, after which he murdered Samantha Bissett and her daugher with even more brutality and even more mutilations. There is clear escalation in both the severity of the mutilations and the efficiency of the crimes. None of this rules out Cutbush as JTR, but on the other hand, we would need to accept that the whole learning/emboldening/progressing process happened in reverse towards the end.

Best regards,
Ben

Ben, Napper did actually "get caught" soon after Rachel, Samantha and her daughter were murdered in the 1992/3 spree,suggesting he may have begun to become more careless and begun to lose it.The only thing I can think of that may explain the Cutbush apparent slide backwards is that he had become careless and his illness had affected his concentration and sense of caution?

[Chris]

The source is from the series of articles contained in the Sun,and can be cross referenced to a large degree in Macnaghten"s 1894 memorandum.

I think you have that quite badly muddled.

[Robert]

I know, Nats. And my keyboard seems to want to type what it wishes, and sod me.

[Natalie Severn]

Robert,sometimes just tapping the stuff out on the keyboard too fast is when a wrong letter or digit gets in.

[Ben]

Where the Napper/Cutbush comparison falls short, in my view, is Cutbush's failure to conform to the process of escalation which clearly characterized Napper's crimes. The Green Chain rapes occured before the stabbing of Rachel Nickell, after which he murdered Samantha Bissett and her daugher with even more brutality and even more mutilations. There is clear escalation in both the severity of the mutilations and the efficiency of the crimes, as I believe there was in 1888. None of this rules out Cutbush as JTR, but on the other hand, we would need to accept that the whole learning/emboldening/progressing process happened in reverse towards the end.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

...or even to Martha Tabram, come to that.

On the other hand,Sam, it seems extraordinary to me that Thomas Cutbush was sent to an institution for the criminally insane on the basis of an "unheard" court case that rested simply on his arrest for malicious woundings,if all he ever did regarding these "malicious woundings" was cause a mild superficial wound in the backside of one woman.That is nasty----but Broadmoor?
Anyway it is a court case which we may hopefully be able to hear more about now that the files on Cutbush are being released.
It has to be remembered too that the Sun introduced their series of articles in 1894 by stating that in both his defence and prosecution statements at court , he was suspected of being "Jack the Ripper".

[Robert]

Hi Nats

Well, if it was 1984, the old memory gets a bit fuzzy at that age.

[Natalie Severn]

On that point, what is the source of this story about him creeping up behind the doctor and drawing a gun on him?

The source is from the series of articles contained in the Sun,and can be cross referenced to a large degree in Macnaghten"s 1894 memorandum.
But,Chris,I would ask you again what your "evidence" is that this was a paper that was dishonest or untrustworthy?
My own understanding is that The Sun of 1888 was a reliable and respectable daily newspaper.My understanding of Macnaghten"s 1894 memorandum however,where he contradicts the Sun on Cutbush on several occasions, is that it was chock full of inaccuracies about Druitt, Ostrog etc etc which,if you would like me to,I will quote further in greater detail.

[Robert]

Hi Chris

It's complicated. Thomas may have committed a crime, but he was not convicted of anything, and his solicitor averred that he could have established his client's innocence, given the chance. Thomas was, however, dangerous.

At the same time, we have Colocitt, who was convicted, only to be released.

And finally we have Macnaghten, who says that Colocitt was discharged owing to faulty identification, but believes that Colocitt committed the earlier stabbings.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=3772

[Chris]

.......Can you tell us whether you think the threatened attack on his doctor in his surgery at Westminster Bridge Road-as per Macnaghten"s 1894 memorandum-was in the same vein----ie when Cutbush had crept up behind his doctor, drawn a gun on him and threatened to kill him-was that just Cutbush at 30 playing cowies and inguns sort of thing?

On that point, what is the source of this story about him creeping up behind the doctor and drawing a gun on him?

[Sam Flynn]

I have simply pointed out that only in one case is he known to have stabbed a woman, and that the wound would appear to have been superficial. I'm astonished that you seem to want to dispute that this fell far short of what was done - for example - to Mary Kelly!...

...or even to Martha Tabram, come to that.

[Chris]

Natalie

(1) I've pointed out some specific difficulties with the Sun stories. Please forgive me if I don't go through it all again.

(2) Where have I "dismissed" Cutbush's attacks? I have simply pointed out that only in one case is he known to have stabbed a woman, and that the wound would appear to have been superficial. I'm astonished that you seem to want to dispute that this fell far short of what was done - for example - to Mary Kelly!

(3) The reason why Cutbush was sent to an institution for the criminally insane and Kozminski wasn't is simple - Cutbush had committed a criminal offence and Kozminski hadn't.

(4) And no, I didn't say what Cutbush did was "no big deal", let alone that it was a "chuckle". Please have the courtesy not to misrepresent what I have said.

In short, you can believe what you want to about all this, but don't accuse me of "prejudice" because I refuse to accept all the Sun's unsubstantiated claims, and don't try to distort what I have said into some nonsensical straw man.