Assessing Cutbush

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If you aren’t going to read the evidence your opinion can’t be considered as carrying any weight. Richard’s claims have been proven wrong. One simple example..his claim that Smith’s suspect was Thompson. Ask any person on here…more, ask any Ripperologist anywhere…and they will all tell you that Smith’s suspect was Oswald Puckeridge. We even have the statements of the two police officers that arrested him! And yet Richard STILL keeps posting that Smith’s suspect was Thompson. This isn’t a different ce of opinion Fishy. It’s not a difference in interpretation. It’s a man who has been confronted with the truth in black and white but still posts as if this isn’t the case.

If you intend to try and defend Richard on this point please don’t bother Fishy.

And to favour Thompson over Cutbush beggars belief.

Can we place either in Whitechapel at the time of the murders - only Cutbush.
Was either of them ever violent towards women - only Cutbush
Did either provably carry a knife - only Cutbush
Did either have a reason for hating prostitutes - only Cutbush
Were the police interested in either of them - only Cutbush

Thompson doesn’t count as a suspect. He’s a marketing ploy.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richard offers up a different example of Thompson than you Herlock , all which has been shown in the same way you see cuttbush . That you disagree with him is up to you , but no one has yet proven everything we know about him was simply made up or false as you have alluded to .

If its ok to offer up a "possibility " argument (i.e the hospital) to make point Herlock then you leave yourself open for the same examples from Richard , I think you completely ignored him where this is concerned.

When all is said and done comparing the two, Thompson makes a much better and viable suspect that Cutbush for reasons already discussed at length on this thread.

If you aren’t going to read the evidence your opinion can’t be considered as carrying any weight. Richard’s claims have been proven wrong. One simple example..his claim that Smith’s suspect was Thompson. Ask any person on here…more, ask any Ripperologist anywhere…and they will all tell you that Smith’s suspect was Oswald Puckeridge. We even have the statements of the two police officers that arrested him! And yet Richard STILL keeps posting that Smith’s suspect was Thompson. This isn’t a different ce of opinion Fishy. It’s not a difference in interpretation. It’s a man who has been confronted with the truth in black and white but still posts as if this isn’t the case.

If you intend to try and defend Richard on this point please don’t bother Fishy.

And to favour Thompson over Cutbush beggars belief.

Can we place either in Whitechapel at the time of the murders - only Cutbush.
Was either of them ever violent towards women - only Cutbush
Did either provably carry a knife - only Cutbush
Did either have a reason for hating prostitutes - only Cutbush
Were the police interested in either of them - only Cutbush

Thompson doesn’t count as a suspect. He’s a marketing ploy.

[FISHY1118]

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?

Richard offers up a different example of Thompson than you Herlock , all which has been shown in the same way you see cuttbush . That you disagree with him is up to you , but no one has yet proven everything we know about him was simply made up or false as you have alluded to .

If its ok to offer up a "possibility " argument (i.e the hospital) to make point Herlock then you leave yourself open for the same examples from Richard , I think you completely ignored him where this is concerned.

When all is said and done comparing the two, Thompson makes a much better and viable suspect that Cutbush for reasons already discussed at length on this thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lawende gets a lot of attention based the level of detail in his description, but that's why I question his description of an unremarkable man that he saw for only a few moments in poor lighting. That's either exceptional levels of observation and memory or Lawende's subconscious filling in details. Statements of the other two men also lead me to question Lawende's accuracy. Levy only described the man's height, but that estimate varied significantly from Lawende's. Harris said that the man was only visible from the back, which would make it impossible to determine if the man had a mustache, let alone the size and color.

I'm not saying Lawende was lying. I'm saying human perception and memory are fallible.

Absolutely Fiver. And Lawende was hardly standing across the road staring at the couple; he was passing by. I’d also point out that being directly under lighting could affect the perception of colour or shade. A person could give a guy a couple of glances at someone with shadowing around the mouth and decide that he’d had a moustache. The clothing that someone wore might make them appear bulkier or stockier than they actually were. Then there’s how individuals perceive colour. I often have difficulty with some greens and greys for example.

[Fiver]

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)

Lawende gets a lot of attention based the level of detail in his description, but that's why I question his description of an unremarkable man that he saw for only a few moments in poor lighting. That's either exceptional levels of observation and memory or Lawende's subconscious filling in details. Statements of the other two men also lead me to question Lawende's accuracy. Levy only described the man's height, but that estimate varied significantly from Lawende's. Harris said that the man was only visible from the back, which would make it impossible to determine if the man had a mustache, let alone the size and color.

I'm not saying Lawende was lying. I'm saying human perception and memory are fallible.

[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?

[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.

[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 .