Why did Macnaghten deny Cutbush as a serious suspect?

[Chris]

-----it was clearly getting late when I wrote that----perhaps a better way of putting it would be that Macnaghten appears to have "accepted" the Sun"s "story" while "refuting" their conclusions about Cutbush being the Ripper.

Obviously he didn't accept that the Sun reports were factually accurate in what they said about Cutbush, any more than he accepted that Cutbush was the Ripper.

I am a bit at a loss over what you are saying over Thomas Cutbush.Are you saying Thomas Cutbush was not paranoid,that he was not locked up in Broadmoor because he was violent and a danger to women ?

Clearly he was sent to Broadmoor as a criminal lunatic. How dangerous he was to women is not very clear to me. That was why I was asking about the nature of the injury to Johnson. From the information Robert linked to, the wound seems to have been a rather superficial one. Obviously he could not be allowed to go round sticking knives into women's bottoms, but equally obviously it's a world away from what was done to the Ripper victims.

The other thing I am saying is that I am extremely sceptical about the accuracy of the Sun reports, except where they can be backed up by proper contemporary evidence, for the reasons I've given.

[Sara]

Surely the point Natalie keeps making, imo quite properly, is that the case of Napper makes it impossible to rule out Cutbush on the grounds that his *known* attacks on women were far short of the Whitechapel mutilations?

Imo the Napper case throws most previous assumptions based on signature and related profiling concerning JtR into the air. In the context of what we know now about criminal behaviour, I can't see that McNaughton's ideas on the case can be of much help to us in any direction.

Personally I'd be inclined to dismiss McNaughten's opinion on anything anyway, given he was willing to condemn George Edalji for cattle mutilations on the grounds of his 'criminal' physiognimy! The poor guy may have had a little uncorrected astigmatism in his eyes but he looks a sensitive and thoughtful man, to my eyes!

Yet another eg of a senior Plod seeing what he wants to see
I think he dismissed Cutbush purely because this possibility didn't fit in with his already preconceived ideas

[Chris]

Surely the point Natalie keeps making, imo quite properly, is that the case of Napper makes it impossible to rule out Cutbush on the grounds that his *known* attacks on women were far short of the Whitechapel mutilations?

It may be impossible to rule him out - it's impossible to rule out most of the population of England in 1888. The question is what evidence there is against him. And the answer is, precious little.

If you're going to write things like "When I looked at Napper's sullen arrogant face staring insolently into the camera lens, on his way back to Broodmoor, I saw Cutbush looking back at me", I really think that's a question you should consider.

[Natalie Severn]

Surely the point Natalie keeps making, imo quite properly, is that the case of Napper makes it impossible to rule out Cutbush on the grounds that his *known* attacks on women were far short of the Whitechapel mutilations?

Imo the Napper case throws most previous assumptions based on signature and related profiling concerning JtR into the air. In the context of what we know now about criminal behaviour, I can't see that McNaughton's ideas on the case can be of much help to us in any direction.

Personally I'd be inclined to dismiss McNaughten's opinion on anything anyway, given he was willing to condemn George Edalji for cattle mutilations on the grounds of his 'criminal' physiognimy! The poor guy may have had a little uncorrected astigmatism in his eyes but he looks a sensitive and thoughtful man, to my eyes!

Yet another eg of a senior Plod seeing what he wants to see
I think he dismissed Cutbush purely because this possibility didn't fit in with his already preconceived ideas

Thankyou Sara---you make some very necessary points at this juncture.
I had forgotten about the Edalji case!Nothing remotely resembling "crime evidence" from Macnaghten there!

[Cap'n Jack]

Chris
I would ask you to consider the Pitchfork case that I have posted elsewhere, and then to tell me what you make of man who has thousands of victims for his anti-social behaviour and then suddenly murders and mutilates one of them; then returns to his 'normal' anti-social behaviour for two years and four months before murdering and mutilating another victim?
Pitchfork's anti-social behaviour - exposing himself to young girls - would have been considered a fairly soft and ridiculous crime at that time, much like poking women in the rear with a toy dagger in the LVP one imagines?
You win my 'Macnaghen Prize Cup' of the year.

[Chris]

I had forgotten about the Edalji case!Nothing remotely resembling "crime evidence" from Macnaghten there!

Except that if you read what Macnaghten actually wrote about this, you'll see that he didn't "condemn" Edalji as Sara claimed.

In fact he explicitly said that his previous opinion that Edalji was guilty had been founded on inadequate facts and was possibly quite erroneous!

[Chris]

AP

I could consider the case of Colin Pitchfork until I was blue in the face, but it would have absolutely no bearing on the factual accuracy of the Sun reports about Cutbush - or indeed on the seriousness of Cutbush's crimes.

[Natalie Severn]

You are showing a great deal of bias and prejudice regarding the Sun Newspaper Chris,if I may say so, and since you are someone so keen on "evidence" can I ask first of all what "evidence" you have for your views on The Sun?

Also as you are a man ready to dismiss Cutbush"s knife attacks in the street on two women [two that we definitely know of ] as falling far short of what the Whitechapel murderer did and --- er ----how do you know what else the Whitechapel murderer did --?--? --? -I take it your thinking on it is very like Macnaghten"s on this matter?
In other words was the paranoid schizophrenic Thomas Cutbush, who like Napper was later to be detained in Broadmoor for life for these offences to women, just a sort of harmless nutter or was he working in a zigzag along the same path as Napper-one step forward two steps back-depending on the message from above?

---BTW can I have your opinion on why you think Thomas Cutbush was sent to "Broadmoor"an institution for the criminally insane and considered a danger to others ? Why not Colney Hatch or Leavesdon where Kosminski was sent for example----did Kosminski"s asylum notes say he was a danger to others or not?

----- Are you seriously saying that a paranoid schizophrenic who had deliberately bought knives in Houndsditch / The Minories in 1891 with the intention of carrying out knife attacks on women ---- and psst---who did,actually carry out knife attacks on them, was " no big deal" - just "someone" sticking knives in girls bottoms-bit of a chuckle really all that?




---Would you too conclude,like one understands Macnaghten appears to conclude in his memorandum, that the arresting officer and the courts of law who considered these knife attacks to be "malicious woundings" were acting a bit over the top ,making a fuss over nothing sending him to Broadmoor over them?


.......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?



Thanks
Norma

[Cap'n Jack]

Heavens, Chris, don't go blue in the face on my account... red will do very nicely.

[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.

[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]

.......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?

[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

[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 Nats

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