Assessing Cutbush

[The Rookie Detective]

It may also be worth noting that there are several newspaper articles that reference Cutbush as "James Cutbush" rather than Thomas.

With an apparent use of "cut and paste" it is difficult to ascertain where the initial report on Cutbush actually originated, and which publications simply reprinted the original without verifying their facts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the subject of syphilis and revenge Tracy said this in The Sun:

“The writer of this article once saw a soldier - a quiet, almost gentle creature, with fine brown eyes and an intellectual face and mind - tried for the murder of an unfortunate woman whom he had not seen for nearly 20 years, and whom he murdered immediately after his return from a long period of service in India.

The originating cause of this mania in most cases is the ravages of the mind caused by constitutional disease, and the desire to avenge the wrong on the class from which it was supposed to have spring. This is one of the many reasons which make it plain that Jack the Ripper would be a man past his first boyhood; old enough to have undergone years of severe suffering - mental and physical. It is often found that the idea of having contracted the disease, though unfounded, produces the same form of mania.”

From this Bullock got to this:

“Travelling back to Tudor Street, he contemplated what might have led Cutbush to assault the prostitute. Sitting inside the cab as it traversed the irregular cobblestones leading towards London Bridge, his mind wandered to a man he had once known during his time working in India, a soldier of quiet temperament and gentle nature, who went on to commit a most horrendous crime. Tracy recalled the surprise he had felt when, after serving twenty years, the soldier returned to his homeland and on arrival in England, without warning or hesitation, murdered a prostitute in cold blood. From what he knew of him, the soldier had contracted syphilis from the same prostitute two decades earlier and though many years had passed, on returning home he was overtaken with the desire for revenge. It threw up the possibility that Cutbush had come to believe that the prostitute whom he attacked had given him syphilis, the disease for which he had sought treatment when contacting Dr Brooks in July of 1888.”

We have no clue of course how Bullock got this:

“Unable to look directly at her guest, choosing instead to cast her gaze towards the parlour window, Clara replied: ‘There was one woman. He saw her often, so we were led to believe. Our nephew wasn’t inclined to keep such matters from us, Mr Tracy, though most men would, I’m sure. The relationship, if you can call it that, stopped quite suddenly.’ ‘And this happened – when?’ asked Tracy. ‘The exact date escapes me, though it was prior to 1888, of that I am sure,’ replied Clara. Though seemingly hesitant to explain fully the reason behind the relationship ending, Clara eventually admitted all she knew, stating that while in a fit of rage her nephew had viciously attacked and raped the woman whom he had been seeing.”

[rjpalmer]

So far on this thread we've learned:

1. Cutbush is a good suspect because he raped a prostitute.
2. Cutbush is a bad suspect because he raped a prostitute.

Meanwhile, there is no legitimate historical source showing that Cutbush ever raped a prostitute.

[Debra A]

Good post.


I agree in terms of Cutbush behaving very differently to the manner in which the Ripper behaved.


Cutbush used a quick blitz attack that deliberately avoided engagement with the victim; ergo, he ran up and stabbed them with his dagger from behind and then quickly ran off to avoid rebuttal.

Whereas the Ripper deliberately engaged with his victims. He prayed upon them, built their trust and used his charm to convince them to drop their defenses. He spent time with them and there's evidence to support the idea that he didn't just stab and run.

It's also important to note that Cutbush was only ever reported to have attacked women in the same road in Kennington.
He never went around and attacked women in different places like the Ripper did.

Cutbush was also deemed as unfit for trial and insane, and this again does not support the characteristics of a psychopathic post mutualtion killer like the Ripper.

A man who presented himself as openly lunatic, the likes of Cutbush, Kosminski and Hyams (to name a few) really don't fit into the psyche of a killer who had the mental capacity to perfect his attack, timings, escape routes etc...

The Ripper wasn't a lunatic in a clinical sense, and that is always forgotten.

That's why for me, Cutbush wasn't the Ripper.

Hi Chris,
Just a quick reminder that on 5th March 1891, Thomas Cutbush's medical examination notes in the Newington workhouse remark that his mental health has been "getting worse for two years" I don't think we actually know what his condition was in 1888?

[The Rookie Detective]

I’d argue against due to three of these points:

1. Raped a prostitute - the ripper, although clearly targetting sexual areas, did not have penetrative nor mastubatory sex at the scene (it was looked for)
2. Attacked four women, stabbing two. The man that could kill Nichols and Eddowes in complete silence, would have been capable of killing whenever minded. Personally I suspect each attack was successful, but many more were abandoned
3. Non-fatal stabbings- the Ripper could kill in seconds before noise or defence were possible. This doesn’t fit with Cutbush’s attacks


Having said that, he should be considered a person of interest, just not the Ripper.

Paul

Good post.


I agree in terms of Cutbush behaving very differently to the manner in which the Ripper behaved.


Cutbush used a quick blitz attack that deliberately avoided engagement with the victim; ergo, he ran up and stabbed them with his dagger from behind and then quickly ran off to avoid rebuttal.

Whereas the Ripper deliberately engaged with his victims. He prayed upon them, built their trust and used his charm to convince them to drop their defenses. He spent time with them and there's evidence to support the idea that he didn't just stab and run.

It's also important to note that Cutbush was only ever reported to have attacked women in the same road in Kennington.
He never went around and attacked women in different places like the Ripper did.

Cutbush was also deemed as unfit for trial and insane, and this again does not support the characteristics of a psychopathic post mutualtion killer like the Ripper.

A man who presented himself as openly lunatic, the likes of Cutbush, Kosminski and Hyams (to name a few) really don't fit into the psyche of a killer who had the mental capacity to perfect his attack, timings, escape routes etc...

The Ripper wasn't a lunatic in a clinical sense, and that is always forgotten.

That's why for me, Cutbush wasn't the Ripper.

[kjab3112]

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.

I’d argue against due to three of these points:

1. Raped a prostitute - the ripper, although clearly targetting sexual areas, did not have penetrative nor mastubatory sex at the scene (it was looked for)
2. Attacked four women, stabbing two. The man that could kill Nichols and Eddowes in complete silence, would have been capable of killing whenever minded. Personally I suspect each attack was successful, but many more were abandoned
3. Non-fatal stabbings- the Ripper could kill in seconds before noise or defence were possible. This doesn’t fit with Cutbush’s attacks


Having said that, he should be considered a person of interest, just not the Ripper.

Paul

[The Rookie Detective]

From Jonathan Hainsworth....

There is no such thing as "suspectology". It's a bogus and juvenile term created by the ignorant to pre-emptively dismiss anybody who tries to show that based on avilable sources the case is solved, historically speaking, either at the time or now. If you think a person's argument/interpretation is unpersuasive, that's perfectly fair enough - but how about we jettison the reductive 'identity politics' which plagues hobbyists of this subject?

Not a pretentious patronising comment in the slightest then, haha!

The somewhat misguided reliance in the upper echelons of police personnel who were involved with the case, is an issue which has plagued it since day one.

"Suspectology" was born out of the need to try and explain away the reason for certain officers coming across as obtrusive, evasive and ambiguous.

This includes the likes of MacNagthen, Anderson and Swanson.


It is precisely their failings as officers of the law that enabled the concept of "Suspectology" to be born in the first place.

For the term to be labeled as "bogus" and "juvenile" is simply a means to put down those who have spent many decades trying to clear up the mess and fill the gaps left by the Ripper equivalent of the 3 stooges named above.

The case was never solved and to claim otherwise is to support an archaic mindset that no longer holds sway amongst the majority of Ripperolgoists who recognise that Suspectology is a crucial part of the case; despite it being a dirty word to some. A necessary evil as it were.

Anderson in particular was a man who was so determined to retain control, that he made out he knew who the killer was all along when he penned his memoirs.
Despite apparently knowing the culprit, he still chose to not name the killer.
But this wasn't because he wanted to protect the public by claiming they no longer needed to know the killer's identity; it was because he wanted to be in control.
A man who didn't have the decency to admit defeat, and chose instead to patronise those beneath him, by not giving them the truth as to the killer's identity.

A callous and cold decision that only helped to self-serve and paint himself in a good light.

Swanson then backed his former boss by jumping on the bandwagon and backing the same agenda to paint himself in a better light.

And of course, MacNagthen's faux "list" of suspects acted as the very first form of "Suspectology."


An irony which isn't lost on the post above.

[Lewis C]

Mr. Hainsworth seems to be implying that the case has been solved. Is that really his position?

[The Rookie Detective]

From Jonathan Hainsworth....

There is no such thing as "suspectology". It's a bogus and juvenile term created by the ignorant to pre-emptively dismiss anybody who tries to show that based on avilable sources the case is solved, historically speaking, either at the time or now. If you think a person's argument/interpretation is unpersuasive, that's perfectly fair enough - but how about we jettison the reductive 'identity politics' which plagues hobbyists of this subject?

Not a pretentious patronising comment in the slightest then, haha!

The somewhat misguided reliance in the upper echelons of police personnel who were involved with the case, is an issue which has plagued it since day one.

"Suspectology" was born out of the need to try and explain away the reason for certain officers coming across as obtrusive, evasive and ambiguous.

This includes the likes of MacNagthen, Anderson and Swanson.


It is precisely their failings as officers of the law that enabled the concept of "Suspectology" to be born in the first place.

For the term to be labeled as "bogus" and "juvenile" is simply a means to put down those who have spent many decades trying to clear up the mess and fill the gaps left by the Ripper equivalent of the 3 stooges named above.

The case was never solved and to claim otherwise is to support an archaic mindset that no longer holds sway amongst the majority of Ripperolgoists who recognise that Suspectology is a crucial part of the case; despite it being a dirty word to some. A necessary evil as it were.

Anderson in particular was a man who was so determined to retain control, that he made out he knew who the killer was all along when he penned his memoirs.
Despite apparently knowing the culprit, he still chose to not name the killer.
But this wasn't because he wanted to protect the public by claiming they no longer needed to know the killer's identity; it was because he wanted to be in control.
A man who didn't have the decency to admit defeat, and chose instead to patronise those beneath him, by not giving them the truth as to the killer's identity.

A callous and cold decision that only helped to self-serve and paint himself in a good light.

Swanson then backed his former boss by jumping on the bandwagon and backing the same agenda to paint himself in a better light.

And of course, MacNagthen's faux "list" of suspects acted as the very first form of "Suspectology."


An irony which isn't lost on the post above.

[Lewis C]

From Jonathan Hainsworth....

There is no such thing as "suspectology". It's a bogus and juvenile term created by the ignorant to pre-emptively dismiss anybody who tries to show that based on avilable sources the case is solved, historically speaking, either at the time or now. If you think a person's argument/interpretation is unpersuasive, that's perfectly fair enough - but how about we jettison the reductive 'identity politics' which plagues hobbyists of this subject?

I don't need to use the term "suspectology" to dismiss the idea that the case has been solved. To me, "suspectology" just means the study of the reasons for and against various people being suspects in the case, and that certainly exists, even if someone does want to argue that the case has been solved. And I don't know what identity politics have to do with anything.

[GBinOz]

It’s why I’m always reluctant to just accept that the killer must have lived in Whitechapel. He certainly may have done especially considering that we don’t know who he was but we can’t really know if or how much he travelled to the murder sites.

Hi Herlock,

I see having a bolt hole as a different situation to living in the area. The former implies that the person involved uses the bolthole specifically as a means of accessing an area for the purpose of acquiring a victim. Living in the area would indicate involvement in the local community, particularly the pubs that formed the focus of communal recreation, and selecting victims from within that community. However, I do agree that we can't, for the present, know if he was a commuter or a marauder.

Cheers, George

[mklhawley]

From Jonathan Hainsworth....

There is no such thing as "suspectology". It's a bogus and juvenile term created by the ignorant to pre-emptively dismiss anybody who tries to show that based on avilable sources the case is solved, historically speaking, either at the time or now. If you think a person's argument/interpretation is unpersuasive, that's perfectly fair enough - but how about we jettison the reductive 'identity politics' which plagues hobbyists of this subject?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, a bolthole is a definite possibility. The only problem is that if he had a bolt hole, we probably wouldn't know it. So there are some suspects that we know lived in the area, but for those that didn't live there, we usually can only say that he might have had a bolt hole.

It’s why I’m always reluctant to just accept that the killer must have lived in Whitechapel. He certainly may have done especially considering that we don’t know who he was but we can’t really know if or how much he travelled to the murder sites.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

I agree. I wouldn’t have expected the killer to have travelled miles but within a reasonable distance. I’m not saying that the killer couldn’t have lived locally but another issue for a killer local would have been the potential, however slight, of being recognised. That he targeted that area certainly suggests that he had at least some familiarity with it.

Then again….there was Aldgate tube station for example. There is the possibility of the killer having a bolt hole somewhere. Maybe he worked in the area and had access to premises (shed/outbuilding etc)

Yes, a bolthole is a definite possibility. The only problem is that if he had a bolt hole, we probably wouldn't know it. So there are some suspects that we know lived in the area, but for those that didn't live there, we usually can only say that he might have had a bolt hole.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

A lot of people in this forum know more about other serial killers than I do, but I would think that the small area that the murders occurred in would be uncommon, before one even considers where the killer lived. I would expect it would be even more uncommon in the era of motor vehicles.

The area that the murders occurred in was so small that the killer could have lived just outside the area defined by drawing lines to connect the murder sites, but still have been close enough to have easy access to the area and to be able to get home quickly after the murders.

Hi Lewis,

I agree. I wouldn’t have expected the killer to have travelled miles but within a reasonable distance. I’m not saying that the killer couldn’t have lived locally but another issue for a killer local would have been the potential, however slight, of being recognised. That he targeted that area certainly suggests that he had at least some familiarity with it.

Then again….there was Aldgate tube station for example. There is the possibility of the killer having a bolt hole somewhere. Maybe he worked in the area and had access to premises (shed/outbuilding etc)