Cutbush - Too Easily Dismissed As A Suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well the thing is that we can definitively rule out anyone because we don't know who committed these horrible crimes. However not one suspect has anywhere near enough evidence attached to them to make them viable, by modern day standards. That is why the case will never be solved. Is Cutbush dismissed too easily, I don't believe so. It might have been him but we don't know his whereabouts on the nights of the killings which to be honest is really all we wpuld have to go on.

Even if we did Peter Sutcliffe showed that sometimes family inadvertently back you up. I mean if we read the of the murder of Jean Jordan and the murders were still unsolved, we would be almost certain it wasn't Peter Sutcliffe, as he had a house warming party with his wife and parents on the night the killer returned to the body. It would seem to fantastical that he would leave his parents home, go to the body, mutilate it some more in a temper and then return home to his wife.

How many suspects and none that we can say with any certainty where they were on the night of the killings. No Police files to say the wife said he was home. Or files saying he signed in at work at a certain time and left at another time. All we have is linkage based on well he threatened his sister with a knife. Or well he killed his wife cut her up and then reported her death as suicide. Or he stabbed women in the behind. Or he had a clean record all his life but as he was found beside a dead woman it must have been him.

Should we really only consider someone a plausible suspect if they can be placed at or near the crime scenes at the time though SD? I agree with you that we will never have enough to convict or even to attain a consensus of opinion but all that we can do is to assess the suspects that we currently have. Perhaps the best way that I could put my thinking on Cutbush is this - if we could go back in time as investigators at the time of the murders and we were asked to give our opinion as to a description of the ripper, what might we say? Perhaps..

Someone who could roam the streets at night at night.
Someone who had somewhere to hide body parts away from the prying eyes of family. *
Someone with a hatred of prostitutes specifically, or women in general.
Someone who had a history of violence against the above/ including sexual violence.
Someone who was known to use a knife in real acts of violence.
Someone for whom something might have triggered the murders.
Someone with knowledge of anatomy/ even an obsession with the subject.
Someone obsessed with women’s bodies, their anatomy and of mutilation.
Someone whose disturbed behaviour had been noticed by others; especially those close to him.
Someone who might have struggled to hold down a steady job.
Someone who might have liked to talk about the murders.
Someone who, if his property had been searched, we would probably have expected to find at least some incriminating evidence.

* from Bullock, “In 1893, Clara offered up a clue. During an interview with KJ, she informed the reporter that in the rear garden of 14 Albert Street stood a brick outhouse, a place used solely by Cutbush. Kate had entered it once and though never enlightening her sister as to what she had discovered inside, on the day of her son’s arrest she arranged for it to be pulled down and destroyed, with the rubble removed immediately, leaving no trace of what once stood in its place.”

I’m not claiming that he was the ripper though SD. It’s interesting though that a man who (for me) ticks more boxes than any other suspect and yet he almost never gets mentioned or discussed. And yet we spend hours on here discussing non-suspects (accepted that I’m as guilty as anyone for this)

[Fiver]

It’s worth asking why Cutbush was told that he’d spend the rest of his life in an asylum for stabbing two women neither of which were life threatening injuries? Others got far more lenient sentences.

One of those lighter sentences being George Capel Scudamore Lechmere getting 18 months hard labor for cutting his wife's throat while she was nursing their baby, but failing to kill her.

[Fiver]

People even doubt Joseph Lawende.

Lawende saw a couple strangers for a few moments in poor lighting.

"of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak." - Joseph Lawende, 2 October 1888 Times

"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor." - Joseph Lawende, 19 October 1888 Police Report

"Age 30 to 35. Height 5ft. 7in., with brown hair and big moustache, dressed respectably. Wore a pea jacket, muffler and a cloth cap with a peak of the same material." - Joseph Lawende, 1889 Police Report

[Coroner] What height was the man?
[Levy] I should think he was three inches taller than the woman, who was, perhaps, 5ft high. I cannot give any further description of them.

"Mr. Henry Harris, of the two gentlemen our representative interviewed, is the more communicative. He is of opinion that neither Mr. Levander nor Mr. Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man." - Evening News, 9 October 1888

The Levy account contradicts Lawende. Levy thought the man was 4 to 6 inches shorter than Lawende did.

The Harris account contradicts Lawende. If the man's back was turned, Lawende couldn't have seen the neckerchief of mustache.

The Lawende accounts contradict each other. The man was "of shabby appearance" and "dressed respectably". His hair was brown and fair. His mustache was big and small. He wore a pea jacket and a dress jacket. He wore a red neckerchief and a muffler.

Lawende thought the woman was Eddowes. He could be wrong. Church Passage was not the only route into and out of Mitre Square.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One of those lighter sentences being George Capel Scudamore Lechmere getting 18 months hard labor for cutting his wife's throat while she was nursing their baby, but failing to kill her.

Good point Fiver. It’s at least surprising that a man convicted of one instance of wounding and one of attempted GBH gets locked up for life with the countries most dangerous men.

[The Rookie Detective]

It's important to remember that Cutbush was never convicted of any crime.

He was never given the chance to admit, confess or plead anything.

He was labelled as insane and sent to the asylum before he could ever be convicted.

And that is the reason why he was institutionalised so quickly and thus has been overlooked for so long.

The question is; why did MacNagthen really write his memorandum?

What was his end game?

Why such an effort to counter a man (of being the Ripper) who was already locked up in an asylum?

It's apparent that MacNaghten was picking random "Lunatics" out of the air with the likes of Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog.


Whether they were all lunatics is of course a subjective argument, but the idea that MacNagthen believed they were is the point here.


MacNagthen is literally comparing one lunatic with another.


It's also important to bear in mind that during his incarceration Cutbush made it clear to others around him that he would sooner rip them up than look at them; if only he had a knife.

It's clear everyone thought he was a dangerous man.

But crucially, his label of "insane" WAS contested.

The fact he had the ingenuity to evade capture, escape, scale a 12 foot wall, steal clothes and blacken his face to disguise himself etc... etc... indicates he wasn't as far gone as one would expect.

Rather than eat from the gutters and ramble gibberish, he was actively able to navigate his way around and arguably play the insanity card when he felt the need to.

IMO Cutbush is one of the most underrated suspect in the entire case.

It's astonishing that when placed side by side with the likes of Lechmere, Maybrick and Kosminski (the one who was still alive when the Marginalia was written) he isn't given the light of day.

Cutbush often displayed a paranoic complex behaviour and repeatedly stated that men were after him.

He was clearly a paranoid schizophrenic.

Which as we know today... isn't the same as being "insane."

One interesting side note; Cutbush went on record as stating he knew nothing of Whitechapel...that is despite also being proven to have purchased his "toy" knife from a shop in the Minories.
The "toy" knife wasn't a toy of course, but a formidably "sharp" 6 inch blade tapered at the end, with a distinctly decorated sword type hilt and accompanying sheath.

He claimed to have needed it for protection against the men who were after him.

But of course, in reality people never carry knives in public for protection; they carry them with the intent of using them if and when provoked.

A dangerous paranoid schizophrenic wandering around with a sharp bladed 6" knife...

What could possibly go wrong?


Perhaps MacNagthen's seemingly overzealous effort to rule out Cutbush as the Ripper may have stemmed from his annoyance and egotistical views that IF the Ripper was going to be caught, it would be the police that would find him and thus have the power.

Did he try and call the newspaper's bluff by writing the memorandum?

Could the Ripper have been Cutbush... and it was MacNagthen that tried to cover it up by suggesting other names that he knew had nothing to do with the murders?

Cutbush was incarcerated in 1891.

That may just be a very relevant fact in terms of the cessation of the Ripper murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I find this interesting although Bullock doesn’t provide a source. Maybe someone can shed light on it?

“On 21 March 1891, before Judge Hopkins of Lambeth Police Court, Cutbush was charged on remand with feloniously cutting and wounding Florence Grace Johnson with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He was also charged with attempting to wound Isabella Fraser Anderson. Commissioner Sir Edward Bradford sent Chief Inspector Chisholm to attend the court on his behalf. Upon his arrival, the Chief Inspector ordered, very unusually, that only sworn information relating to Cutbush be read, making it clear that it was the Commissioner who had made this request and indicating that under no circumstances could Cutbush’s possible connections to the Ripper case be discussed.”

(The Man Who Would Be Jack, Kindle version, p152)

And this?

“Reviewing the abortive trial in 1893, KJ and Tracy were amazed by the sudden conclusion of the proceedings, especially in light of the fact that in Prosecutor Mr De Michele’s brief and in the instructions of the solicitor who defended Cutbush, they had found the same startling statement: the defendant was suspected of being Jack the Ripper.”

(The Man Who Would Be Jack, Kindle version, p155)

KJ and Tracy were the two Sun reporters, Kennedy Jones and Louis Tracy by the way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's important to remember that Cutbush was never convicted of any crime.

He was never given the chance to admit, confess or plead anything.

He was labelled as insane and sent to the asylum before he could ever be convicted.

And that is the reason why he was institutionalised so quickly and thus has been overlooked for so long.

The question is; why did MacNagthen really write his memorandum?

What was his end game?

Why such an effort to counter a man (of being the Ripper) who was already locked up in an asylum?

It's apparent that MacNaghten was picking random "Lunatics" out of the air with the likes of Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog.


Whether they were all lunatics is of course a subjective argument, but the idea that MacNagthen believed they were is the point here.


MacNagthen is literally comparing one lunatic with another.


It's also important to bear in mind that during his incarceration Cutbush made it clear to others around him that he would sooner rip them up than look at them; if only he had a knife.

It's clear everyone thought he was a dangerous man.

But crucially, his label of "insane" WAS contested.

The fact he had the ingenuity to evade capture, escape, scale a 12 foot wall, steal clothes and blacken his face to disguise himself etc... etc... indicates he wasn't as far gone as one would expect.

Rather than eat from the gutters and ramble gibberish, he was actively able to navigate his way around and arguably play the insanity card when he felt the need to.

IMO Cutbush is one of the most underrated suspect in the entire case.

It's astonishing that when placed side by side with the likes of Lechmere, Maybrick and Kosminski (the one who was still alive when the Marginalia was written) he isn't given the light of day.

Cutbush often displayed a paranoic complex behaviour and repeatedly stated that men were after him.

He was clearly a paranoid schizophrenic.

Which as we know today... isn't the same as being "insane."

One interesting side note; Cutbush went on record as stating he knew nothing of Whitechapel...that is despite also being proven to have purchased his "toy" knife from a shop in the Minories.
The "toy" knife wasn't a toy of course, but a formidably "sharp" 6 inch blade tapered at the end, with a distinctly decorated sword type hilt and accompanying sheath.

He claimed to have needed it for protection against the men who were after him.

But of course, in reality people never carry knives in public for protection; they carry them with the intent of using them if and when provoked.

A dangerous paranoid schizophrenic wandering around with a sharp bladed 6" knife...

What could possibly go wrong?


Perhaps MacNagthen's seemingly overzealous effort to rule out Cutbush as the Ripper may have stemmed from his annoyance and egotistical views that IF the Ripper was going to be caught, it would be the police that would find him and thus have the power.

Did he try and call the newspaper's bluff by writing the memorandum?

Could the Ripper have been Cutbush... and it was MacNagthen that tried to cover it up by suggesting other names that he knew had nothing to do with the murders?

Cutbush was incarcerated in 1891.

That may just be a very relevant fact in terms of the cessation of the Ripper murders.

Whilst I disagree on Druitt, it’s encouraging to see someone who isn’t impervious to the possibility of Cutbush, Chris.

Another interesting point for me:

“Clara also provided what KJ and Tracy saw as an answer to one of the biggest mysteries of the Ripper investigation. As the police were aware, from almost every one of his victims the Ripper had taken trophies. What baffled the officers on the ground, as well as senior officials working on the case, was where the killer would have kept them. In 1893, Clara offered up a clue. During an interview with KJ, she informed the reporter that in the rear garden of 14 Albert Street stood a brick outhouse, a place used solely by Cutbush. Kate had entered it once and though never enlightening her sister as to what she had discovered inside, on the day of her son’s arrest she arranged for it to be pulled down and destroyed, with the rubble removed immediately, leaving no trace of what once stood in its place.”

(The Man Who Would Be Jack, Kindle version, p171)

[Lewis C]

I've been interested in Cutbush as a suspect for some time, since I read much of A.P. Wolf's book about him. The problem that I had was that Wolf's book has no citations, or at least the version that I have doesn't. So if everything said in the book is true, he's a very good suspect (relative to the other named suspects), but uncertainty of the accuracy of the book kept me from ranking him as highly as if the sources were shown. When I saw Herlock's post reviving this thread, I thought that the Bullock book he cited might provide confirmation of what Wolf said. But then I read Tom's post about the book being couched in fiction, which made my previous doubts reappear.

Herlock's list of reasons for suspecting Cutbush is a convincing argument for him being one of the best named suspects, provided that it's all true. But is there strong evidence that it's all true?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've been interested in Cutbush as a suspect for some time, since I read much of A.P. Wolf's book about him. The problem that I had was that Wolf's book has no citations, or at least the version that I have doesn't. So if everything said in the book is true, he's a very good suspect (relative to the other named suspects), but uncertainty of the accuracy of the book kept me from ranking him as highly as if the sources were shown. When I saw Herlock's post reviving this thread, I thought that the Bullock book he cited might provide confirmation of what Wolf said. But then I read Tom's post about the book being couched in fiction, which made my previous doubts reappear.

Herlock's list of reasons for suspecting Cutbush is a convincing argument for him being one of the best named suspects, provided that it's all true. But is there strong evidence that it's all true?

My copy of Wolf’s book has a Sources, References and Notes section at the end which amount to four pages. I might give his Cutbush section another read.

[Tom_Wescott]

Lawende saw a couple strangers for a few moments in poor lighting.

"of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak." - Joseph Lawende, 2 October 1888 Times

"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor." - Joseph Lawende, 19 October 1888 Police Report

"Age 30 to 35. Height 5ft. 7in., with brown hair and big moustache, dressed respectably. Wore a pea jacket, muffler and a cloth cap with a peak of the same material." - Joseph Lawende, 1889 Police Report

[Coroner] What height was the man?
[Levy] I should think he was three inches taller than the woman, who was, perhaps, 5ft high. I cannot give any further description of them.

"Mr. Henry Harris, of the two gentlemen our representative interviewed, is the more communicative. He is of opinion that neither Mr. Levander nor Mr. Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man." - Evening News, 9 October 1888

The Levy account contradicts Lawende. Levy thought the man was 4 to 6 inches shorter than Lawende did.

The Harris account contradicts Lawende. If the man's back was turned, Lawende couldn't have seen the neckerchief of mustache.

The Lawende accounts contradict each other. The man was "of shabby appearance" and "dressed respectably". His hair was brown and fair. His mustache was big and small. He wore a pea jacket and a dress jacket. He wore a red neckerchief and a muffler.

Lawende thought the woman was Eddowes. He could be wrong. Church Passage was not the only route into and out of Mitre Square.

Please remind me what police report this appears in.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Lawende walked apart from the other two men, into the street, which would have given him a side view (versus a back view) of the man.

[Fiver]

Please remind me what police report this appears in.

I got it from here. According to the link, the original source is Evans and Skinner, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, p. 457 (2000).

P.S. Lawende walked apart from the other two men, into the street, which would have given him a side view (versus a back view) of the man.

That would give Lawende a different perspective than Levy and Harris. Where is it said that Lawende walked apart from the other two men, into the street?

[Tom_Wescott]

I got it from here. According to the link, the original source is Evans and Skinner, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, p. 457 (2000).



That would give Lawende a different perspective than Levy and Harris. Where is it said that Lawende walked apart from the other two men, into the street?

Press accounts of his inquest testimony. I'm afraid I don't have access to my notes right now. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Lawende saw a couple strangers for a few moments in poor lighting.

"of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak." - Joseph Lawende, 2 October 1888 Times

"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor." - Joseph Lawende, 19 October 1888 Police Report

"Age 30 to 35. Height 5ft. 7in., with brown hair and big moustache, dressed respectably. Wore a pea jacket, muffler and a cloth cap with a peak of the same material." - Joseph Lawende, 1889 Police Report

[Coroner] What height was the man?
[Levy] I should think he was three inches taller than the woman, who was, perhaps, 5ft high. I cannot give any further description of them.

"Mr. Henry Harris, of the two gentlemen our representative interviewed, is the more communicative. He is of opinion that neither Mr. Levander nor Mr. Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man." - Evening News, 9 October 1888

The Levy account contradicts Lawende. Levy thought the man was 4 to 6 inches shorter than Lawende did.

The Harris account contradicts Lawende. If the man's back was turned, Lawende couldn't have seen the neckerchief of mustache.

The Lawende accounts contradict each other. The man was "of shabby appearance" and "dressed respectably". His hair was brown and fair. His mustache was big and small. He wore a pea jacket and a dress jacket. He wore a red neckerchief and a muffler.

Lawende thought the woman was Eddowes. He could be wrong. Church Passage was not the only route into and out of Mitre Square.

Okay, I had a chance to check Ultimate. The highlighted description was not from an 1889 police report but from the February 18th, 1891 edition of The Daily Telegraph, reproduced by Evans & Skinner in their Frances Coles section. No idea where the DT got these details, but it was not direct from Joseph Lawende.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott