Assessing Cutbush

[Fiver]

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

The guide says "The possibility of Thomas Cutbush being Jack the Ripper was thoroughly investigated by the police at the time, and shown to be without foundation."

But nothing in the article shows that Cutbush was investigated, let alone cleared.

[Patrick Differ]

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.

I couldnt get the vote selection to work but i would vote reasonable and better than 50%.

That said, when it comes to all of these suspects i would imagine that there are facts that drive us to conclusions and a certain amount of objective license to make the argument. I think in the case of Cutbush and all the suspects really, that is well presented.

In my own research and with limited time my focus has been on trying to answer questions that can be proven but realizing my questions might be different than others. The Cutbush argument, in my mind, illustrates how this might drive the different outcomes.

When engaging on this site I often walk away from it thinking that sometimes i find myself getting too much into the weeds. In 2025 I am also wondering what we really know that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For example:

Can it be proven that:
DId the suspect live in Whitechapel? This is a deal breaker for me as any FBI profile will consider this first.

Where were the women killed? Where they were found seems conclusive.

What was the murder weapon? A very sharp knife at least 6 inches long and pointed. That seems conclusive.

What the bodies tell us is also conclusive: a Pattern
Throats cut
Abdomen mutilated
Organs extracted or removed
Organs unrecovered and taken.
Possible asphyxiation first.

Witnesses- while the debates i see are varied my own conclusion in 2025 is that there was a consistency of sorts in what they saw. They saw the victims just before they were murdered . We can argue that they did not or may have not or even dispute their character. One even becomes a suspect?

What would I consider conclusive? Two witnessed ( Long and Hutchinson) what they considered openly or by inference the man they saw was a Foriegner. Two other witnesses ( Lawende and Harris) were immigrants who had been in Whitechapel for years and Levy ( who was from a Legacy Whitechapel family of butchers). And Israel Schwartz , a Jewish immigrant who could only speak Yiddish.

In terms of the Hove incident or identification that could have been Schwartz, Lawende or Levy. A Jewish man refusing to convict a fellow Jew?

There could be arguments against the witness testimony but it appears their testimony was what they saw and what they heard. A man and woman speaking English.

The only other physical evidence is the Eddowes Apron found on Goulston Street and possibly the graffito message.

True or False? If there is documented evidence that something is Not True that should be considered conclusive then it should be illustrated.

The victims in this case were all local prostitutes that lived in the same general area and had lived there within the last 2 years of their lives. That is conclusive. They were all gentiles and some had been married with children. Conclusive.

Apologies for the narrative here but it would be nice to have a consensus baseline summary on what has to be considered True. The Witness Testimony is an example. Is there really any hard proof their testimonies were fabricated

We all have favored suspects but i think any hard test would likely have to match closely with the conclusive evidence and other facts. Other facts:

The killer had the skill to murder and mutilate and extract
The killer was adept at using a knife.
The killer always escaped.
The killer was insane but controlled.
The killer operated in silence and confined spaces.
The killer spoke English.
The killer only killed at night.
The killer only killed prostitutes.
The killer may have had anatomical or medical knowledge.

i thought this summary might be helpful. It helps me LOL

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 ?

Actually Fishy Cutbush was never dismissed as a suspect if you read the evidence correctly (or at all) or cleared by Scotland Yard of being JTR. All Mac said was that he thought Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog were "more likely" to have been JTR than Cutbush. That’s all.

The main point of his memo was that the Sun had made some errors in its articles, particularly in respect of the knife and the images of mutilated women. But he still gives various reasons to think that Cutbush could have been JTR.

We know that the police investigated Cutbush for the JTR murders because Mac says that: "It was found impossible to ascertain his movements in the nights of the Whitechapel murders". So he was not cleared. They couldn't clear him. It was that there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge him.

[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.