Assessing Cutbush

[FISHY1118]

So Morley is the deciding judge? Tell me Fishy…do you concur with Morley’s assessment of Gull too?

Morleys assessment of Gull isnt anything that we dont already know Herkock and have discussed at length . What he doesnt say tho is that he was investigated by the police at the time and dismissed as a suspect . So whats your point ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jack the Ripper: A Suspect Guide by Christopher J. Morley There you Herlock .

So Morley is the deciding judge? Tell me Fishy…do you concur with Morley’s assessment of Gull too?

[FISHY1118]

A brilliant piece of analysis Fishy. You add one quote but don’t say who it’s by.

Compare what we know about Cutbush’s with what we know about the joke suspect Thompson. No reasonable person could look at Cutbush then look at Thompson and go for Thompson. It’s just not possible.

Jack the Ripper: A Suspect Guide by Christopher J. Morley There you Herlock .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thomas Haynes Cutbush


Thomas Cutbush was named as the Ripper by the Sun newspaper, first on 13 February 1894 and then subsequently in later editions. Author A.P Wolf, in the book Jack The Myth, also favoured Cutbush as the Ripper. The possibility of Thomas Cutbush being Jack the Ripper was ''thoroughly investigated by the police'' at the time, and shown to be ''without foundation''.




I guess the Police at the time investigated all of the above.


I believe Detective Abberline made the same point about Druitt . I certainly wouldnt be betting the house on these two suspect as JtR, that the police at the time dismissed so thoroughly is very telling . Other are more applealing.

A brilliant piece of analysis Fishy. You add one quote but don’t say who it’s by.

Compare what we know about Cutbush’s with what we know about the joke suspect Thompson. No reasonable person could look at Cutbush then look at Thompson and go for Thompson. It’s just not possible.

[FISHY1118]

People may recall that I said I recently said that no matter what I say or suggest, Fishy will automatically go for the polar opposite? When I did this poll I said to myself “I can only see one person possibly voting for the lower option” because surely no one could call Cutbush a poor suspect and surprise, surprise. Fishy hasn’t posted on the subject of JTR for two weeks but he just couldn’t miss an opportunity.

Known to wander at night and return in the early hours.
Had an outhouse that only he had access to.
Believed that a prostitute gave him syphilis.
Got a job in Whitechapel a month before the Nichols murder.
According to his aunt he raped a prostitute
Attacked at least 4 women with a knife (stabbing two)
Pushed an old man down stairs for a slightly mocking comment
Obsessed with anatomy and medical issues.
Obsessively drew anatomical drawings including of a woman with her abdomen cut open.
A police inspector and others were convinced that he was the ripper.
Found in his room - a large knife, anatomical drawings and some clothing with blood on them hidden in a chimney breast.
Got sentenced for life in Broadmoor for two non-fatal stabbings

A poor suspect?

Compared to Cross and Thompson and Van Gogh and Gull and Sickert and the vast majority of others?

Time to get real on this subject.

Thomas Haynes Cutbush


Thomas Cutbush was named as the Ripper by the Sun newspaper, first on 13 February 1894 and then subsequently in later editions. Author A.P Wolf, in the book Jack The Myth, also favoured Cutbush as the Ripper. The possibility of Thomas Cutbush being Jack the Ripper was ''thoroughly investigated by the police'' at the time, and shown to be ''without foundation''.




I guess the Police at the time investigated all of the above.


I believe Detective Abberline made the same point about Druitt . I certainly wouldnt be betting the house on these two suspect as JtR, that the police at the time dismissed so thoroughly is very telling . Other are more applealing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yer i Do , I disagree with you only when you refuse to accept the simple truth where the evidence is concerned .

That is, we all share the same evidence Herlock , we all interpret it in different ways, all you seem to want do is convince yourself others that their interpretation is wrong and you are right .

And what you’re approach suggests is that when we get one person taking one position and another person taking another position we should just accept that both are of equal value and so we should simply call it a ‘score draw.’ What you should do Fishy, is look at the actual evidence yourself and not just see it in terms of Richard and myself (which, when I’m involved, is what you always do)

Richard is PROVABLY wrong and I (and others like Fiver for example) are PROVABLY right.

No he hasnt 'Manipulated evidence'', its his ''Interpetation'' of it that bothers you .

No Fishy HE HAS. If you had bothered to read the evidence as opposed to just taking your default position of going the opposite way to me. One just one issue - Richard claims that Thompson was staying at the Providence Row Refuge at the time of the murders. Not that he might have…he states this as a fact. Now…I dare you to read the EVIDENCE…all that we have is that Thompson saw men queueing outside the Refuge but we have no idea when he saw the Refuge. He went to London in 1885 and the article that the information was in was published in 1891! So it could have been 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890 or even 1891. So Richard MADE UP that Thompson stayed in the Refuge at the time of the murders.

I can give you a lengthy list of similar untruths. They clearly don’t bother you though.


If he invented something about Thompson ,why dont you ask him to provide a specific sourse as to where he came about it ?, instead of assuming its 'invented by him and not from a third party im sure he will oblige.

Are you being serious Fishy!!!

I’ve asked Richard question after question after question after question after question and he refuses POINT BLANK to answer. He just keeps posting the same list of nonsense. Check the threads. If he has nothing to hide why can’t he answer? Stop making excuses for him. I’ll answer any question. I’ll respond to any and every point.

You need to start assessing the evidence and not the poster.

[FISHY1118]

No you don’t. You take a position where you disagree with me on every point. I’m the one being fair. Richard has been proven - 100% proven - to have invented and manipulated evidence. You just refuse to assess the evidence properly as usual.

Yer i Do , I disagree with you only when you refuse to accept the simple truth where the evidence is concerned . That is, we all share the same evidence Herlock , we all interpret it in different ways, all you seem to want do is convince yourself others that their interpretation is wrong and you are right .

No he hasnt 'Manipulated evidence'', its his ''Interpetation'' of it that bothers you . If he invented something about Thompson ,why dont you ask him to provide a specific sourse as to where he came about it ?, instead of assuming its 'invented by him and not from a third party im sure he will oblige.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No so , you seem to be clutching at the same old line as before , Richards evidence hasn't been shown to made up or wrong, only your opinion of it . Your opinions which you are entitled to, merely make for a back and forth argument .At no stage have you the right to call your side factual when you can't prove what Richard is claiming is a lie !. .

Your view of any evidence relating to any and all jtr suspects is no more right or wrong as the next guys.

There's no grudge here at all Herlock, I respect your right to an opinion just as the next persons ,I just happen to take a more common sense and fair play attitude to it than you .

No you don’t. You take a position where you disagree with me on every point. I’m the one being fair. Richard has been proven - 100% proven - to have invented and manipulated evidence. You just refuse to assess the evidence properly as usual.

[FISHY1118]

The very obvious problem with that Fishy is that you haven’t read the actual evidence. You’ve just heard Richard’s manipulated version but it’s not a question of interpretation it’s about presenting the evidence fairly. You have simply gone “hmmmm Richard or Herlock? No competition…Richard.” The problem is that Richard has manipulated evidence and invented evidence. And he can get away with it because he makes the correct assumption that the vast majority who read about his theory aren’t going to go out and buy John Walsh’s biography or Everard Meynell’s. They can hear him say that Thompson matches Smith’s suspect description without knowing that the suspect is provably Puckeridge. He can claim that Thompson was staying within 100 yards of the murder sites at the time of the murders but we know that the FACTS tell us that there is zero evidence for this. He tries to claim that his fictional writings entitled him to call Thompson ‘violent’ and you just go along with it. He claims that three trivial fire-related accidents prove him an arsonist. No issue for you.

You should focus on the ACTUAL evidence Fishy and not let grudges affect your judgment.

No so , you seem to be clutching at the same old line as before , Richards evidence hasn't been shown to made up or wrong, only your opinion of it . Your opinions which you are entitled to, merely make for a back and forth argument .At no stage have you the right to call your side factual when you can't prove what Richard is claiming is a lie !. .

Your view of any evidence relating to any and all jtr suspects is no more right or wrong as the next guys.

There's no grudge here at all Herlock, I respect your right to an opinion just as the next persons ,I just happen to take a more common sense and fair play attitude to it than you .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its impossible to read Richards summary of Thompson and call him a bad suspect to , but you did, so there you go . The same evidence that makes cutbush a good suspect in your eyes 'Different'' evidence makes him a bad one in mine . As ive said, you cant seem to get this concept . I like your polls , go ahead do another ill vote accordingly .

Nice to see your keeping tabs on me .

The very obvious problem with that Fishy is that you haven’t read the actual evidence. You’ve just heard Richard’s manipulated version but it’s not a question of interpretation it’s about presenting the evidence fairly. You have simply gone “hmmmm Richard or Herlock? No competition…Richard.” The problem is that Richard has manipulated evidence and invented evidence. And he can get away with it because he makes the correct assumption that the vast majority who read about his theory aren’t going to go out and buy John Walsh’s biography or Everard Meynell’s. They can hear him say that Thompson matches Smith’s suspect description without knowing that the suspect is provably Puckeridge. He can claim that Thompson was staying within 100 yards of the murder sites at the time of the murders but we know that the FACTS tell us that there is zero evidence for this. He tries to claim that his fictional writings entitled him to call Thompson ‘violent’ and you just go along with it. He claims that three trivial fire-related accidents prove him an arsonist. No issue for you.

You should focus on the ACTUAL evidence Fishy and not let grudges affect your judgment.

[FISHY1118]

It’s impossible to read that summary of Cutbush and call him a poor suspect. If he’s a poor suspect then every single suspect ever named is a poor suspect. If anyone else had done that poll you would have voted differently.

Its impossible to read Richards summary of Thompson and call him a bad suspect to , but you did, so there you go . The same evidence that makes cutbush a good suspect in your eyes 'Different'' evidence makes him a bad one in mine . As ive said, you cant seem to get this concept . I like your polls , go ahead do another ill vote accordingly .

Nice to see your keeping tabs on me .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unlike your good self Herlock, I accept people's opinions of the evidence on both sides You never ever do . The evidence on cutbush is poor in my opinion ,therefore i voted appropriately..

It’s impossible to read that summary of Cutbush and call him a poor suspect. If he’s a poor suspect then every single suspect ever named is a poor suspect. If anyone else had done that poll you would have voted differently.

[FISHY1118]

People may recall that I said I recently said that no matter what I say or suggest, Fishy will automatically go for the polar opposite? When I did this poll I said to myself “I can only see one person possibly voting for the lower option” because surely no one could call Cutbush a poor suspect and surprise, surprise. Fishy hasn’t posted on the subject of JTR for two weeks but he just couldn’t miss an opportunity.

Known to wander at night and return in the early hours.
Had an outhouse that only he had access to.
Believed that a prostitute gave him syphilis.
Got a job in Whitechapel a month before the Nichols murder.
According to his aunt he raped a prostitute
Attacked at least 4 women with a knife (stabbing two)
Pushed an old man down stairs for a slightly mocking comment
Obsessed with anatomy and medical issues.
Obsessively drew anatomical drawings including of a woman with her abdomen cut open.
A police inspector and others were convinced that he was the ripper.
Found in his room - a large knife, anatomical drawings and some clothing with blood on them hidden in a chimney breast.
Got sentenced for life in Broadmoor for two non-fatal stabbings

A poor suspect?

Compared to Cross and Thompson and Van Gogh and Gull and Sickert and the vast majority of others?

Time to get real on this subject.

Unlike your good self Herlock, I accept people's opinions of the evidence on both sides You never ever do . The evidence on cutbush is poor in my opinion ,therefore i voted appropriately..

[Tani]

I'm torn.

He seems reasonable for reasons like:

- Odd behaviour

- Violent behaviour.

- Medical self-study.

- Isolationist.

But as you said, I think his suspiciousness is lowered by his back-stabbing violence. I'm unsure how one goes from Tabram (who I consider canonical), Eddowes, Kelly, to random stabbings. I'm also not convinced JTR is a rapist-type. If Cutbush did violate a prostitute this seems out of line with what Ripper seemed to be doing. If JTR wanted to rape, I think we would have seen more cases of this leading up to the full-fledged attacks.

Food for thought. I think he's between unlikely possible and reasonable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

nice post herlock.
hes probably been dismissed because mm dismissed him , and not only that, offered up other suspects that have remained 'canon' Except for ostrog of course. i voted reasonable suspect but im leaning higher.

That’s a fair position to take Abby (as ever) Nothing wrong with you being cautious. I think that many have tended to see him as a kind of harmless loony who prodded the back of a few voluminous skirts doing little harm but those were the crimes attributed to Colicott. Cutbush was a different kettle of fish. You wouldn’t want Thomas living next door Abby.