Assessing Cutbush

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[FISHY1118]

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.

Walsh claimed Thompson spent six weeks in hospital in mid October, I don't see any evidence of that as far as hospital records go.

[FISHY1118]

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.

So basically what your suggesting and drawing the longest ever bow, is that everyone that couldn't account for there whereabouts on the night of the murders is and remains a suspect? Its think its fair to say the police at the time were much more thorough with their investigation than that Herlock,as far as Cutbush was concerned .

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I certainly agree Patrick that when making a case a proposer might tend to ‘improve’ the suspect whether by huge leaps of faith or making a kind of 1 + 1 = 3 type interpretation so we have to be wary. Roger told me to be wary of this recently in the case of Bullock. There are certainly a couple of inferences that he makes that are questionable but in general I don’t see anything egregious.

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.

I’ve never seen that one as particularly important Patrick but I know that many will heavily favour that the killer lived in Whitechapel.

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

Agreed.

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

Agreed.

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.

No real issue with that but there are examples of serial killers changing their methods or who behaved differently under different circumstances.

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.

I think it’s very difficult to say the least to get a definitive description of the ripper from witnesses. For example im not totally convinced that Lawende saw Eddowes and her killer though it’s certainly a strong possibility (perhaps its most likely that he did)

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?

The Seaside Home identification is a bit of a minefield to say the least.

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.

I’ve been on the fence with the graffito for 30 odd years Patrick.

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

Certainly.

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.

Nichols had lived in Wandsworth for two months May to July.

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

I don’t see any reason to suspect any of the witnesses of lying. They could certainly have been mistaken though - in identification, in times etc

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

I wouldn’t dispute any of that Patrick.

Cutbush certainly had some anatomical knowledge but we can’t know to what extent.
We have no information concerning his skills with a knife so we certainly can’t assume that he had them.
He certainly didn’t live in Whitechapel but he had at least two jobs there; one of which would have involved him moving around the area.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So basically what your suggesting and drawing the longest ever bow, is that everyone that couldn't account for there whereabouts on the night of the murders is and remains a suspect? Its think its fair to say the police at the time were much more thorough with their investigation than that Herlock,as far as Cutbush was concerned .

No Fishy, I was responding to your claim that he’d been exonerated, nothing more. He wasn’t exonerated. Al, that I’ve done with Cutbush is to look at the criteria that people tend to look for in a suspect.

Did he go out at night with his whereabouts being unknown - yes.
Did he have a possible reason for hating prostitutes - yes.
Did he know Whitechapel - yes.
Was he violent - yes.
Did he use a knife - yes.
Did the police show an interest in him - Inspector Race, a well thought of officer, was convinced of his guilt. It seems that he wasn’t alone in that.

Added to that, when Race searched his room he found the drawings, a knife and some clothing stuffed up the chimney which smelled of turpentine (which hints at an attempt at removing stains.

None of that makes him the ripper and I’ve never claimed that he was but the very least we should ask ourselves is how many of the named suspects tick so many ‘boxes?’ Does it make sense to dismiss Cutbush and talk about Cross or Thompson as suspects when neither have anything like as much going for them as suspects (or indeed anything)

For eg Thompson

Cant be placed in Whitechapel at the time of the murders
No example or incident of him ever being violent
He mentioned that he’d used a scalpel to shave at some point in his life - no mention of him carrying a knife
Possibly in hospital at the time of Kelly’s murder.
No one at the time considered him dangerous
As far as as we know, never of interest to the police

Not really much comparison in reality is there?