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.

[FISHY1118]

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.

Ok. However, when Dective Abbererline dismissed Druitt as per his press interview and nothing from that day to this shows us anything that would make him worth looking into, or supporting his worthiness as a suspect per say , why do so many people here have him so high on their list as JtR ???


''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.''


If thats the case with Thompson then its the same for Druitt and Cutbush is it not ? , so on a scale of 1 to 10 why do you think Druitt is always seen as a 7/8 and Thompson almost and in most peoples eyes a 1/2 ? . I do hope you can at least see my point of view.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok. However, when Dective Abbererline dismissed Druitt as per his press interview and nothing from that day to this shows us anything that would make him worth looking into, or supporting his worthiness as a suspect per say , why do so many people here have him so high on their list as JtR ???


''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.''


If thats the case with Thompson then its the same for Druitt and Cutbush is it not ? , so on a scale of 1 to 10 why do you think Druitt is always seen as a 7/8 and Thompson almost and in most peoples eyes a 1/2 ? . I do hope you can at least see my point of view.

If we look first at what we know about Druitt, Thompson and Cutbush as people then we would have to put Thompson slightly ahead of Druitt but miles behind Cutbush. What increases Druitt’s interest is that he was mentioned as a likely suspect by a very senior police officer who had received information which led him to believe that. It doesn’t mean that he was guilty though of course. There are a lot of other things that make Druitt intriguing though, none of which prove guilt but it’s one of those situations where you only have to think “what if one or two of those ‘possibles’ were true?” The Crawford Letter is one example.

Where the difference lies though is between Cutbush and Thompson. Without going into detail we have: Can either be placed in Whitechapel at the time of the murders - Cutbush yes, Thompson no. Did either have a possible motive for killing prostitutes - Cutbush yes, Thompson no. Was either of them violent - Cutbush yes, Thompson no. Was anything incriminating found in connection to either - Cutbush yes, Thompson no. Did anyone at the time think that either was the ripper? Cutbush yes (Inspector Race) Thompson, not as far as we know.

[caz]

Hi All,

I tend to think that if the ripper had come to police attention by name, either in 1888 or beyond, the information and any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, would have been shared and jointly assessed for its reliability, and we would now have that one name standing above the rest in terms of his likely guilt.

I don't find it remotely satisfactory to have been left with such a range of police opinion on who the killer was or wasn't likely to have been, what sort of character he had, and whether anyone ever really knew the truth, or if any witness had actually seen him engaging with a victim. If opinions differed due more to individual ego and bias than to any relevant knowledge or expertise, or if information was destroyed without ever sharing it, I suspect that Cutbush and Druitt, along with all the other 'names' on file, were equally unlikely to have been Jack.

What would have been the biggest feather in the cap of whoever might have identified this creature, was seemingly put away in a hat box labelled: "I knew", "we knew" or "nobody knew" - the last being the only honest conclusion in my view.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Did anyone at the time think that either was the ripper? Cutbush yes (Inspector Race)

Hi Mike,

Do you have a source for this claim?

If your only source is David Bullock's book, I would advise caution.