Assessing Cutbush

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cutbush is a pathetic suspect Herlock ,the evidence we have on Thompson is far more damaging . Cutbush was thoroughly investigated at the time and dismissed, as was Druitt . Both are no more relevant in this day and age as suspects go.

A brilliant piece of in depth analysis Fishy. I admire how you always respond to the details and give such a comprehensive assessment of the evidence.

You haven’t a clue.

[FISHY1118]

A brilliant piece of in depth analysis Fishy. I admire how you always respond to the details and give such a comprehensive assessment of the evidence.

You haven’t a clue.

Its not my analysis Herlock its a fact based on the evidence ,which you have ignored over the years .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its not my analysis Herlock its a fact based on the evidence ,which you have ignored over the years .

No, it’s not. You clearly haven’t read the evidence Fishy. You’ve looked at what Richard has said, then you’ve looked at what I, and others, have said and you’ve decided that because it’s me you’ll go with Richard. You don’t even read posts properly because it’s been explained to you how neither Druitt nor Cutbush were ever ‘exonerated’ by the police, and yet you still say it. Basically Fishy, you’re doing exactly what Richard does…ignoring evidence that you don’t like.

[FISHY1118]

No, it’s not. You clearly haven’t read the evidence Fishy. You’ve looked at what Richard has said, then you’ve looked at what I, and others, have said and you’ve decided that because it’s me you’ll go with Richard. You don’t even read posts properly because it’s been explained to you how neither Druitt nor Cutbush were ever ‘exonerated’ by the police, and yet you still say it. Basically Fishy, you’re doing exactly what Richard does…ignoring evidence that you don’t like.

Herlock, Please refer to Detective Abberlines interview regarding Druitt . Claiming that i dont read or ignore evidence really gets you nowhere ,its just shows you dont see or recognise others interpretation of the same evidence available to all of us .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, Please refer to Detective Abberlines interview regarding Druitt . Claiming that i dont read or ignore evidence really gets you nowhere ,its just shows you dont see or recognise others interpretation of the same evidence available to all of us .

It’s very straightforward.

Abberline was asked about the case after he had retired.

The Macnaghten Memorandum was written after his retirement.

Macnaghten received his information about Druitt after Abberline was no longer a serving officer.

…..

As you place so much weight in what Abberline said Fishy, can we assume that you now favour Chapman?

Neither Druitt nor Cutbush were never exonerated by the police. This is simply a fact as anyone will tell you. This doesn’t mean that either of them was guilty but it’s still a fact that they weren’t exonerated by the police. Also, we have no evidence in the intervening years which exonerates them either.

[FISHY1118]

It’s very straightforward.

Abberline was asked about the case after he had retired.

The Macnaghten Memorandum was written after his retirement.

Macnaghten received his information about Druitt after Abberline was no longer a serving officer.

…..

As you place so much weight in what Abberline said Fishy, can we assume that you now favour Chapman?

Neither Druitt nor Cutbush were never exonerated by the police. This is simply a fact as anyone will tell you. This doesn’t mean that either of them was guilty but it’s still a fact that they weren’t exonerated by the police. Also, we have no evidence in the intervening years which exonerates them either.

I'm merely pointing out and making you aware of what Abberline said in regards to Druitt as jtr herlock . So when Abberline said there was nothing at the time evidence wise ,(time meaning during the murders) to suggest Druitt was the killer, 134 years later there is still nothing, at what point in time should we stop thinking about Druitt as a serious suspect.?

If you want to use the "no evidence" that exonerates Druitt and Cutbush then the same can be said for any number of suspects ,this of course includes Gull and Thompson .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm merely pointing out and making you aware of what Abberline said in regards to Druitt as jtr herlock . So when Abberline said there was nothing at the time evidence wise ,(time meaning during the murders) to suggest Druitt was the killer, 134 years later there is still nothing, at what point in time should we stop thinking about Druitt as a serious suspect.?

If you want to use the "no evidence" that exonerates Druitt and Cutbush then the same can be said for any number of suspects ,this of course includes Gull and Thompson .

And I’m merely pointing out that it’s wrong to say that these two were dismissed at the time. Very few suspects can be exonerated/dismissed with evidence; even the unlikeliest ones so they remain as ‘suspects.’ We can exonerate Cream and Prince Eddy and Van Gogh to name three off the top of my head. Lewis Carroll is about as weak a suspect as you could find but we can’t dismiss him on evidence (by alibi) and the same goes for Cross and Gull and Thompson and Bury and Kosminski and Cutbush and Druitt and Kelly and Chapman and Hutchinson and an army of others whatever their levels of likeliness.

Ive said that Thompson is a very weak suspect with nothing to make us suspect him but I haven’t said that I can prove him innocent because obviously I can’t. There’s a reasonable chance that he might have been in hospital when Kelly was murdered but it can’t be proven.