Cutbush and Cutbush?

[Jonathan H]

If the theory of Deb and Robert that Charles Cutbush and Thomas Cutbush were, in fact, not related at all, then we are back in that weird twilight zone about Macnaghten, one in which we are left with nothing certain except his Cheshire Cat Grin hovering disembodied over the entire mystery.

I once wote that the late John Updike's characterisation of President Reagan could apply to this police chief: like God, you were never sure what he knew: everything or nothing?

If 'nothing', then he prepared a Report for the Home Sec. because he feared that this madman being alluded to in 'The Sun' might evolve into a major tabloid feast, if it came out that Cutbush -- allegedly the Fiend -- was the nephew of a retired police superintendent. No wonder such misplaced hysterics was shelved into the archive?! [Did not Anderson write that the un-named Macnaghten was apoplectic just over some threatening letter ...?]

If 'everything', then Mac is playing a shell-game of now you see it, now you don't. He ruthlessly exploited the coincidence of the name 'Cutbush' [with Charles safely retired] perhaps to lock in support from the Liberal govt; that the jackal press were about to insinuate a police cover-up of one of their own -- knowing that this was untrue -- and so the Cabinet better fall in line to quash this story.

[Debra A]

Hi Jonathon,
I question that it's a theory...but who knows these days.

[Stephen Thomas]

If the theory of Deb and Robert that Charles Cutbush and Thomas Cutbush were, in fact, not related at all.....

Debs and Robert don't deal in theories, Jon

They deal in facts.

[Jonathan H]

The word 'theory' is not meant perjoratively, simply technically.

Eg. Perhaps Macnaghten, who was there and knew Charles, was right, and the family trees, bizarrely, are wrong.

Or, there is some, forever missing piece that makes sense of both opposing positions?

For example, that Charles sincerely 'thought' he was related to Tom and so voluntered this alarming (mis)informtion from retirement -- why would Mac disbelieve such a claim?

That would make Mac, a primary source, wrong -- but neither a fool nor Machiavellian -- and Deb and Robert correct, as much later secondary sources analysing an alternate, slightly earlier primary source.

In other words an historical theory can be overwhelming in the marshaling of evidence but not absolutely definitive, as pieces remain missing.

This is true of science too. Gravity is not a fact. It is a theory which all the empirical evidence supports.

[Debra A]

For example, that Charles sincerely 'thought' he was related to Tom and so voluntered this alarming (mis)informtion from retirement -- why would Mac disbelieve such a claim?

But aside from the issue of whether or not the two were related (which they weren't), didn't Macnaghten also get some of the the basic facts wrong of a story he was supposedly refuting?
The Sun clearly states that Cutbush's father left the family home when Thomas was young and the Australian and New Zealand press seemed to have picked up on this also in their reports of February and March of 1894, contemporary to Macnaghten's report, even knowing that his father was a New Zealand colonist.
Why does Macnaghten say Thomas's father was dead? This theory seems to stem from the 1891 accounts when Cutbush was arrested for the jobbing incidents and his legal representative claimed his mother was a widow.

[Jonathan H]

I thnk that your earlier postulation to me -- I think -- that the family may have preferred to describe themselves as widowed, for respectability's sake, is the most likely.

Yet, I think it unlikely that the 'Uncle' would volunteer that this madman was his nephew when he was no such thing. Since the crushing weight of the documented primary evidence points to it not being true, then I subscribe to the provisional theory that Macnaghten exploited the co-incidence of the names for his own purposes

[Debra A]

I thnk that your earlier postulation to me -- I think -- that the family may have preferred to describe themselves as widowed, for respectability's sake, is the most likely.

Yet, I think it unlikely that the 'Uncle' would volunteer that this madman was his nephew when he was no such thing. Since the crushing weight of the documented primary evidence points to it not being true, then I subscribe to the provisional theory that Macnaghten exploited the co-incidence of the names for his own purposes

I made a mistake in the last post, it was Cutbush's doctor who thought his mother was a widow..the same doctor who examined Collicott at Holloway too, but yes, I think he was protecting the family name somewhat.

The exploitation of names is an interesting idea, especially as in 1891 Cutbush was on trial at Lambeth for the jobbing incidents and I am probably missing something major here..but, Lloyd's weekly in 1891 were hinting at the same accusations against Cutbush that the Sun were in 1894 ie Cutbush being involved in the East end murders, so why did Scotalnd Yard not feel the need to cover things up then?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Thomas Taylor Cutbush [THC's father] was a cad and a bounder. He deserted his wife Kate [nee Haynes] and young child in November 1866 and on 22nd January 1867 arrived in Wellington, New Zealand, where on 10th December 1867 at St Johns Presbyterian Church he bigamously married Agnes Ingles Stoddart, spinster, age [F]='full, over 21']. Agnes lied about her age. She died on 17th July 1870 aged "20 years and 6 months" [Wellington Independent, 19th July 1870].

TTC wasn't one to let the grass grow under his feet. Two months later, on 24th September 1870, he married at the Office of the Registrar, Wellington, Miss Francis Augusta Evelyn Watson of that city [Wellington Independent, 10th October 1870]. They lived in a freehold property on Tasman Street, Wellington.

On 27th April 1871 TTC appeared before magistrates. J. Rigg, the Town Board Clerk, was claiming Ł1.10s in unpaid rates. TTC paid up.

On 5th May 1871 TTC was objected to "as not being entitled to have their names retained on the list of voters for the city of Wellington".

On 3rd January 1872 Francis Augusta Cutbush gave birth to a daughter.

On 7th May 1872 TTC's name was again objected to on the voters list because he had "left the colony".

That's all I can find on TTC [AP has a trace to South Africa], except to say that in the 1881 census his wife Kate Cutbush listed herself a widow, understandably in preference to being described as deserted—

14 Albert Street, Newington, Surrey. John K. Hayne, 71; his wife, Anne, 75; daughter, Ellen, 37; daughter, Kate, 33 [widow]; two lodgers; and last but by no means least—son, Thomas Cutbush, 15.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

... in 1891 Cutbush was on trial at Lambeth for the jobbing incidents and I am probably missing something major here..but, Lloyd's weekly in 1891 were hinting at the same accusations against Cutbush that the Sun were in 1894 ie Cutbush being involved in the East end murders,
so why did Scotland Yard not feel the need to cover things up then?

Hi Debra,

That is a good question and I'll take a guess-because they had Sadler right then. And even though he was found not guilty that sort of took the attention away from the other caper.

Jonathan, what you said -

He ruthlessly exploited the coincidence of the name 'Cutbush' [with Charles safely retired] perhaps to lock in support from the Liberal govt;

Perhaps Macnaghten, who was there and knew Charles, was right, and the family trees, bizarrely, are wrong.

Charles sincerely 'thought' he was related to Tom and so voluntered this alarming (mis)informtion from retirement

Those suppositions are worthy of consideration. Because no one has figured out why Melville McNaghton said "nephew."

Roy

[Jonathan H]

Thanks, Roy

It's just my opinion, but to me this theory of Macnaghten making this inexplicable error seems extremely strong -- to say the least.

Of course, being of the lone opinion that Macnaghten never made an 'error' that was not part of a discreet agenda I have to say I love this idea that Cutbush and Cutbush are not related.

Why on earth would Macnaghten make this up? Even factoring in the issue of sheer inompetence this takes the biscuit!

On other hand, I see Macnaghten as a deceitful charmer; who lied about the real reasons Druitt and Kosminski were not arrested [eg. dead and mad], who lied about Druitt being the prime suspect of 1888, who lied to Griffiths and Sims about writing, and showing them, a definitve 'Home Office Report', who further lied to Sims about 'Dr D' being twice in an asylum, who lied to the press in 1913 about never wanting his suspect to receive any publicity, who also lied that he had documents OR lied that he had destroyed them all, who lied when he claimed that he would never write memoirs ncluding the Ripper, and who lies in that book as to why he was first blocked from joining the Force [I think turning Druitt into Jekyll & Hyde for his cronies is another lie too].

Against that list, lying about Cutbush fits right in.

Mac wanted his Liberal political masters to help Scotland Yard, not turn their backs on some perceived Tory redoubt.

He wanted to apply pressure to H. S. Asquith that a tabloid-driven scandal was about to blow, just because a distiguished ex-officer was related to this madman?

But just think what the tabloids could do with that?

It is also a way of eliciting sympathy. A retired cop is going to have to sue if a scurrilous charge is insinuated in the gutter press that there was a police cover-up to protect one of their own,

Whereas, if the Home Sec. could nip this thing in the bud much ghastliness ['Jack' was a cop's nephew!] could be avoided.

For a start, Cutbush could not possibly be the fiend. We had not one, not two, but THREE suspects much more likely than that poor man. Not that they were major suspects -- or surely we would have arrested them. Without the names just read out their identities: an English physician, a Polish local maniac, and a Russian doctor criminal, and maniac: a Gentile, a Jew and a Slav.

Just a thought?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

This may have been covered before, so I'll be as brief as possible.

Thomas Taylor Cutbush and Charles Cutbush being brothers is the only way Thomas Hayne Cutbush could have been the nephew of Superintendent Charles Cutbush.

But they were not brothers; nor in any other way related.

Thomas Taylor Cutbush [b. 24th July 1844 Enfield/Edmonton, Middlesex] was the son of Thomas and Ann Cutbush [dates unknown]. In September 1864 at Newington, Surrey, he married Kate Hayne [b.1848]. Their son, Thomas Hayne Cutbush, was born in Lambeth, September 1865.

Charles Cutbush [b.1844 Ashford, Kent] was the son of Charles [b?] and Amelia Cutbush [b.1815]. He had an older sister, Amelia [ch. 21 June 1840]. In December 1867 Charles Cutbush married Ann Dowle [b.1844]. They had five children - Amelia [b.1868], Ellen [b.1871], Winifred [b.1876], Caroline [b.1878] and Charles [b.1880].

Although it was certainly known by the Sun, the name Cutbush was not made public. It was Macnaghten who first named him in his memorandum, at the same time freely admitting a familial connection between a putative Ripper and Superintendent Charles Cutbush. They were nephew and uncle. This couldn't have been a slip on Macnaghten's part, for if the surnames had been mere coincidence we can be sure he would have strenuously denied any connection. So in the light of what we know why might he have made it up?

Perhaps because the only way Superintendent Charles Cutbush could have been related to Thomas Hayne Cutbush is if they were father and son, something which might also explain a cuckolded Thomas Taylor Cutbush deserting his wife and in 1867 heading for a new life in Australia.

Macnaghten dispensed with the Sun's unfounded Ripper story [which had emanated from a disgruntled Inspector Race] by offering up to his superiors a spurious trio of "more likely" Ripper suspects. Thus he told a truth [Cutbush was not the Ripper] by telling a lie. This fudged the obviously sensitive issue of the truth of the Whitechapel murders and also removed any hint of a nepotistic Cutbush/Ripper connection. But Macnaghten went further—and this could be the real purport of his memorandum. In the knowledge that Charles and Thomas were father and son he downgraded their relationship to "uncle and nephew", thus avoiding any breath of an adulterous scandal involving a now retired high-ranking Scotland Yard officer.

I realise the thought of Macnaghten ever telling anything less than the truth is anathema to most students of the subject, but the foregoing scenario fits.

Of course, whether it is true or not is a matter for us to discover.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

What am I missing here ..?

If they are not related, and one is the alleged illegitimate son of the other, how do they end up with the same surname?

[Simon Wood]

The Man From Uncle

Hi Jonathan,

No matter which of the two men was his father, Thomas would have been a Cutbush. Pretty convenient from Charles and Kate's point of view. The two families lived fairly close, so it's all really nothing more than the long arm of coincidence at work.

If it's true, then Thomas Hayne was illegitimate, born of an adulterous affair between his mother and a high-ranking Scotland Yard officer. During the LVP such things were frowned upon, so when the sh*t hit the fan Macnaghten put the best spin on it.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

Look, I am not saying you are wrong Simon -- not at all.

That a man would claim to be an 'uncle' who was the real father is of course perfectly reasonable.

I am just trying to get this specific theory clear in my groggy head?

So, Charles is really the father of Thomas and Mac fudged this with 'uncle', or perhaps the two families did, or both, and so on.

The 'long arm of coincidence' being that a father and his 'bastard' son shared exactly the same surname.

Have I go that part of it right?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Yep, that's about the size of it. I'm not saying I'm right; simply that the pieces fit, right down to Kate's cuckolded husband leaving for Australia and Macnaghten covering for his retired colleague.

If it's not true, why didn't Macnaghten simply say in his memorandum that the surname Cutbush was just a coincidence? There had to be a reason why it was necessary to link man and boy, and I think that reason may lie in the half-truth of "nephew".

Plus, of course, we don't know what else the Sun newspaper might have dredged up.

Regards,

Simon