Cutbush and Cutbush?

[Roy Corduroy]

The Bermuda Triangle

Yes Debs, that's a thought. Mac picked up widow, why not uncle.

But the daddy thing -

The two families lived fairly close...If it's true, then Thomas Hayne was illegitimate, born of an adulterous affair between his mother and a high-ranking Scotland Yard officer.

That was later when they were neighbors. Not 1864 the year of conception. You are bending the time-space continuoum Mr Simon Serling.

Roy

[Debra A]

It's interesting that in the case of Edwin Colicott in 1891, an uncle happens to be mentioned:

Originally found by Chris Scott
The Times
21 MARCH 1891
After a consultation between counsel, Mr. Somes bound the prisoner over to
come up for judgement when called upon. He accepted the father's and uncle's sureties each in £100.

The details of Colicott and Cutbush were mixed up a few times in the press because the nature of their crimes was similar, their adresses were similar, they were of a similar age. Perhaps Macnaghten somehow did too on the uncle thing? Just a thought anyway, I realise this would still rely on Macnaghten using the coincidence of the surnames.

[Jonathan H]

Coincidences happen.

Until somebody experiences one, or stumbles upon one, and then feels that mystical and/or sinister forces are involved.

A man could father a child to a women who was married to a man with the surname. It may have something to do with even how they first met?

On the other hand, historical methodology says that if a source is totally at odds with every other available source then it is probably wrong.

If wrong, why is it wrong?

Why did Mac link two people who only shared the same surname and in such a potentially inflammatory way?

Simon and I agree -- up to a point -- that the Mac Report, official version, is a very slippery document. Ostrog is clearly not the Ripper, and was never a suspect, and yet there he sits.

In a previous post on this thread I outlined examples to try and support a theory that Mac is a practiced deceiver.

Therefore, the weight of probabilities is that he knew they were not realted and decied to link them in a way which he belived served his purposes at that moment.

I postulate that the Cutbush conundrum dovetails well with a Macnaghten attempting to lock in support from the Liberal govt, whilst also hiding that Druitt was a too late suspect [as was Kosminski]. He hypes the poetential trouble the Cuybush saga might cause whilst completely downplaying Druitt as a major suspect. Simon is quite right to argue -- if I understand him correctly -- that in that document, of official record, Druitt is a minor suspect, just better than the madman being exploited in a nuthouse, who was also a retired cop's relative. He hypes one, quite decetifully, whilst downplaying the other, also I think deceitfully.

[Natalie Severn]

Supt. Charles Cutbush was very much a Johnny Upright.I doubt he was carrying on with Kate somehow.Maybe they were kindred spirits and had had a blackout when it happened.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Did MacNaughtens actions perhaps inspire the song?.....Cutbush pity limits?

best wishes

Phil

[Debra A]

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

Hi all,
While it's not impossible that Thomas was the illegitimate son of Charles Henry it would have been a pretty big coincidence that Charles happened to have an affair with a woman who happened to be married to a man with the same surname! Such an event would make more sense if Thomas Taylor and Charles Henry were actually brothers or related in some way.

Thomas Taylor Cutbush left his wife a little time after the death of their second son. As is well known, Kate and her son Thomas were living in Albert Street Lambeth in 1871 along with Kate's parents, whereas Charles Cutbush was living in Westminster in 1871, his daughter Amelia was born there in Westminster in the late 1860's too, before that he was living in Hythe Kent so he most likely didn't become a 'neighbour' of Kate and Thomas until much later on. Roy touched on this subject in a recent thread but I can't locate it at the moment.

[Natalie Severn]

Both boys were given to strange delusions about things.In the case of Charles Cutbush he had serious delusions about the Pope and all types of Popery and according to his orbit in the Times he was convinced he was being poisoned by Papists via his water supply.
Thomas had the same sort of paranoid delusion about his doctors who he was convinced were trying to poison him with certain types of medicine.One day he actually armed himself with a gun ,went over to Westminster Bridge Road where his doctor had his surgery and crept up behind him as he was writing at his desk.Fortunately his doctor realised someone was behind him and rounded on him before Thomas could harm him.
Anyway I think its important to remind ourselves about what they had in common apart from their surnames.
Cheers Folk!

[Chris Scott]

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

The other way Charles and Thomas Hayne could have been uncle and nephew would have been if Charles and Thomas Taylor were brothers IN LAW, i.e. if Charles had married Thomas Taylor's sister.. but again this was not the case and I remain convinced that Charles and Thomas Hayne were not relatives by blood or marriage in any way

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[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