Ep. #39- A Diseased and Vile Creature: Thomas Cutbush

[Robert]

Maybe Chris. But Macnaghten seems to have been the only man who did leap to this conclusion.

[Chris]

Maybe Chris. But Macnaghten seems to have been the only man who did leap to this conclusion.

Couldn't it have been that it was a rumour doing the rounds, and that Macnaghten simply heard it and failed to question it?

I don't think we have enough evidence to say either that he himself jumped, or that he was the only one who jumped.

[Robert]

Chris, it seems to me unlikely that the investigating team of 1891 thought this. And the "Sun" didn't hint at anything like that, as far as I can recall. I suppose there may have been rumours after the Sun published its articles, but none of them were voiced in any news reports as far as I know. I did wonder whether Macnaghten simply put Thomas's mental illness together with Supt Cutbush's and inferred a genetic connection that way. But in the Memorandum, Macnaghten seems to attribute Thomas's illness to the supposed syphilis.

[Chris]

I suppose there may have been rumours after the Sun published its articles, but none of them were voiced in any news reports as far as I know.

But how could they be, without revealing the suspect's identity, and leaving the newspaper open to a libel prosecution?

[Robert]

Hi Chris

I'm sure that newspapers weren't above the odd insinuation, wink or hint. Yet there doesn't seem to be anything.

Incidentally, another of those odd coincidences that litter the case : I went to the Hansard site and looked to see if O'Connor had said anything at all in Parliament in 1894. As far as I can make out, he spoke in every single year from 1880 to 1928 inclusive - except 1894!

[Chris]

I'm sure that newspapers weren't above the odd insinuation, wink or hint. Yet there doesn't seem to be anything.

Well, there is this statement by the Sun:
"Jack the Ripper has relatives; they are some of them in positions which would make them a target for the natural curiosity - for the unreasoning reprobation which would pursue any person even remotely connected with so hideous a monstrosity, and we must abstain, therefore, from giving his name in the interest of these unfortunate, innocent, and respectable connections."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/sun/18940214.html

I wonder if any of Thomas Cutbush's family were in prominent public positions. If not, it would read quite well as an implied reference to his supposed uncle, for those in the know.

[Robert]

Chris, there had been people of wealth and prominence in the larger family, but as regards his immediate family, I don't think so - at least I don't think they're referring to his maternal uncle, though I'd have to check back through the old posts to see what I found about him.

Supt Cutbush of course was no longer in a "position", being retired, but that is more a semantic point. Clara lived on her own means - I never ascertained how she acquired them. Kate opened a china shop - I can't remember exactly when. I don't think she was any kind of celebrity, though a headline in the Times from 1910 read simply "Attack on Mrs Cutbush" as if she was already known to readers - why, I can't imagine.

[Stewart P Evans]

Hardly

...
Supt Cutbush of course was no longer in a "position", being retired, but that is more a semantic point...

Hardly a 'semantic point'!

There's a vast difference between a serving police superintendent, working daily at New Scotland Yard, and one who has been retired over two years on ill-health and who probably no longer had any contact with his former colleagues. Once retired he would be regarded as a 'civilian' by serving officers, which is of course essentially what he was.

When you retire from the police force it means just that, and the only reason efforts are made to boost Charles Cutbush's profile is to support an untenable conspiracy theory.

[Robert]

I knew you'd pounce on that one, Stewart. But the question concerns ex-Supt Cutbush's "position" in the eyes of the Sun, rather than the police - I was adverting to the quote Chris posted. The police may draw a strict line between police and civilians, but outsiders tend to see this line as a grey area, imagining that retired officers still keep in touch and so on and so forth.

[Chris]

When you retire from the police force it means just that, and the only reason efforts are made to boost Charles Cutbush's profile is to support an untenable conspiracy theory.

Needless to say, in suggesting that the Sun's statement might have referred to Charles Cutbush, I wasn't trying to support a conspiracy theory - just speculating that the author of the article, like Macnaghten, may have wrongly believed that the Cutbushes were nephew and uncle.

[Robert]

Yes Chris, well as I say it seems that Supt Cutbush and Thomas Cutbush were not related as uncle and nephew. Against this, you have Macnaghten who says that they were. Was this a complete mistake, or was there a friendship or some other relationship between them? Certainly the onset of Supt Cutbush's illness seems to have more or less coincided with Thomas's committal to Broadmoor, which is suggestive but not of course conclusive. They also seem to have shared certain symptoms. As far as I'm concerned, the issue's still in a state of flux.

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspect

I knew you'd pounce on that one, Stewart. But the question concerns ex-Supt Cutbush's "position" in the eyes of the Sun, rather than the police - I was adverting to the quote Chris posted. The police may draw a strict line between police and civilians, but outsiders tend to see this line as a grey area, imagining that retired officers still keep in touch and so on and so forth.

Thanks Robert, but I think that too much is made of the alleged (or, possibly, real?) relationship between Charles and Thomas. And this is to boost the police cover up/ conspiracy theory.

This in itself tends to detract from Thomas as a suspect because, of course, he doesn't need a complicated theory like this to make him a suspect. He is a valid suspect in his own right with, at least, Inspector Race believing him to be the Ripper. He was, ostensibly, a viable suspect.

The nature of the 'Macnaghten memoranda' is self-evident and in itself surely does not support the idea of a 'guilty' cover-up, but merely indicates a rejection of the Sun's claims some of which were totally groundless and mistaken.

[Robert]

Stewart, I agree the uncle-nephew relationship isn't a vital ingedient, although ideally Thomas will turn out to have been the love child of Lord Salisbury.

There are many questions about Cutbush that I cannot make up my mind about. It would be nice if we had more info on him from 1888. AP and I will keep an eye open, anyway. We live in hopes.

[Ally]

And I still live in hope that someone will turn up some evidence about this alleged conspiracy in Germany. I do hope it's not just another one of AP's "stories".

I still find it hard to believe that such a fascinating and intricate tale wouldn't be readily available on the internet. True crime being a universal interest and all.

[rjpalmer]

Hi there RJ,

I am not complaining that AP isn't Sugden, I am complaining that it seems to be perfectly acceptable in this society and this field for people to lie, invent stories, fail to provide any evidence and it's considered acceptable, and vomit, admirable.

Oh, I utterly understand your concern. And, indeed, I've taken APW to task on many occasions; in regards to his bizarre beliefs about Fred Gump, for instance.

My interest in AP has nothing to do with his accuracy or his reliability, which I would never trust. (I don't particularly' trust anyone's facts). And this is precisely why I implied in my post that one should have at least 3 academic historians for every A.P.W.

APW, in my opinion, is a good and useful remedy for the stuffy certainties of a certain class of historian who errs in the other direction. The type who is so dead set on 'debunking' everything that lies outside his narrow vision that he commits --not factual errors (though sometimes those, too)-- but pompous errors of interpretation and opinion. These can be quite misleading--and even more dangerous than "factual" errors, because they usually disguise themselves as respectability.

You are evidently worried about the 'liars' in this field. I'm not worried about the liars, because I prefer to do my own research, and check things out, anyway. What worries me, instead, is a certain smugness among 'Ripperologists,' (and I'm not refering to you!)---a sort of institutional sheepishness that lets them fall quickly into line, and announce they have proved something when they actually haven't. We can all read the MEPO files for ourselves, sp I'm not so obsessed with the next guy's facts, so much as I am interested in how he (or she) approaches the case, or thinks about the case. And this is why I'm interested in outlaw curmudgeons like A.P.W. and the late David Radka, whether I agree with them or not. Rather than being pissed off because they are 'lying,' I'm more interested in trying to see how --or why-- they are thinking about the case in the way they are. I know you don't' agree--- which is fine--- but I have a soft spot for the mad theorists, not because I believe them, but because they help me loosen up the grey matter and approach the case in a different way. I think allowing a certain madness to have its day in court, or its corner in Hyde Park, is what made the British great.

Besides, Radka was right; good history--and history that eventually has verifiable documentation-- often begins with a subjective theory. Sometimes even a barmy theory. Too many historians fear theory because they fear being the fool.

As for why a possible nutcase would rant against Scotland yard, are you serious? The nuthouses of the world are filled with lunatics who believe that the police, the authorities, "the man" are all out to get him.

Absolutely. Which is precisely why some of them end up stabbing strangers on the sidewalk. But as Robert L. points out, how often do these same nutters have a Chief Constable at Scotland Yard claiming they are related to a Super? Can you and Chris P. see how the 'facts' don't really help you in such cases? In short, it doesn't hurt APW's theory one wit if 'the facts' say Cutbush Jr. wasn't related to Cutbush Sr., if the Chief Constable is saying that he was. The census information at ancestry.com implodes as long as the Chief Constable believes otherwise. Rumors, lies, misinformation, are also part of the historical record--whether we like it or not.