|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2854
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:01 pm: | 
|
I quote from the Macnaghten Memoranda:
‘A few weeks before this, several cases of stabbing, or ‘jobbing’ girls behind had recurred in the vicinity, and a man named Colicott was arrested , but subsequently discharged owing to faulty identification.’
This is pure disinformation, and no excuses about how these officials worked can justify such a catastrophic error… for Colicott was actually found guilty of the assaults on the various women with a knife, but because of his ’weak mind’ was recommended to mercy; and later bound over to return to court if necessary and released into his father’s care with two sureties of £100 with the proviso that a competent attendant should be engaged to be responsible for the prisoner’s safe conduct.
Although the defence team in court attempted to befuddle the issue by claiming that Colicott had been mistaken for Thomas Cutbush, the eye-witness testimony of Charles Myers who had observed Colicitt stabbing a women, and then actually grabbed hold of him, shot that argument out of the water.
Macnaghten is deliberately spreading disinformation here, in what appears to be a calculated attempt to shore up the very wobbly police and court case that led to Thomas’ conviction and life sentence.
Gold watches all round I would say. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2639
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
I must admit that I have also believed that this was what the 1894 memorandum was all about AP and my suspicions increased when I learnt that Collicot was apparently, redhandedly, "caught in the act".
The astonishing differences in sentence / punishment ,for what were apparently near"identical" crimes by Messrs Collicot and Cutbush seemed to reinforce the notion that someone somewhere was "fixing" things regarding one or both of these young men who we now know u were near neighbours and as such became obsessed with this "jobbing" business at one and the same time.
Good thinking by other neighbours perhaps?
Very handy anyway when it came to the big "exposure" by the Sun Newspaper.
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
For once AP, I think I must disagree with you. But I'll give your views some thought.
Phil |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2857
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
If Macnaghten was patently wrong in his reference to Collicot then what was he right about?
This is a simple issue.
Macnaghten claims that Collicit was discharged because of faulty identification, but we know from court reports of the time that Collicot was found guilty of stabbing women with a knife.
It is just as well to remember that Macnaghten cites as his source in his memo the very police officers who brought both Collicot and Cutbush to court, therefore he must have been acutely aware of the outcome of both cases.
Macnaghten is actually caught out here telling a lie.
This is not good.
Thanks Natalie. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 620
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
We know he wasn't right about much of anything regarding Druitt.
Stan |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1029
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 11:37 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Possibly disinformation, but it's also possible that he was misinformed. Considering that the MM was apparently intended as notes for the government to defend their handling of the Cutbush affair as a result of press coverage, why would someone knowingly give information that was not only incorrect but easily proven to be so by the same newspaper already causing a ruckus? It seems to me that that would backfire all too easily. I mean, lying about things that aren't easily checked would be a plausible strategy, but something already in the public record...? I don't know.
Although I suppose if the MM was more intended to just give enough info to certain higher ups to satisfy them that everything was taken care of so as to continue to ignore the situation, that might be a workable strategy... I've seen that particular tack used quite successfully in corporations, though the risk for it blowing up in your face is still there.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2858
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:16 am: |
|
Obviously Macnaghten would have gone directly to the officers under his control to seek information about the police and court circumstances concerning both Collicot and Cutbush.
He does say as much in the Memo.
These officers would not have intentionally lied to their most superior officer… one assumes.
A simple matter of checking their own police records, which would have included the sentences handed down by the courts in both cases.
Possibly at the heart of this matter is how Macnaghten appears keen to convince his reader - regardless of whom that might have been - that Collicot had been discharged because of faulty identifiction, whereas Cutbush had been clearly identified as the culprit, found guilty quite rightly, and then banged up for the rest of his life in Broadmoor.
Macnaghten is attempting to persuade the reader that this was the correct sequence of events.
But nothing could be further from the truth.
For it was Collicot who was clearly identified by an eye witness - working on behalf of the investigating police officers employed on the very case - as the young man who was stabbing women with a knife. This crucial witness not only observed Collicot in the very act of ‘jobbing’ a young lady, but he actually apprehended Collicot shortly after the assault where Collicot was quickly arrested by a police officer.
This chain of evidenced events leaves absolutely no doubt that Collicot was the guilty party. The testimony of the eye witness and the arresting officer are absolutely conclusive and irrefutable.
Now let us examine the circumstances attending the identification of Cutbush as the ‘jobber’.
?
?
Errrr… there are none.
Nothing but a couple of very shaky statements where the witnesses freely admit that they cannot identify the young man who has stabbed them, but it must be Cutbush because the police said so.
That is it.
Clearly it is in the case of Thomas Cutbush and not Collicot where there appears to be a grave danger of faulty identification.
So what Macnaghten is doing here is saying:
‘Black is white, and obviously white is black.’
And for over 100 years we all go along with him.
This is a terrible wrong. For it concerns the obvious guilt of a guilty man who walks free from a court of law after stabbing numerous women and being found guilty of the offences; and it concerns the probable innocence of another man who was imprisoned for life for something which he probably did not do.
Macnaghten wants Cutbush to be guilty, and he wants Collicot to be innocent.
But we now know it was exactly the other way around.
Now why would Macnaghten want things this way? |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Yes, while it would make sense that he would go get accurate information about Collicot and Cutbush before writing the memorandum, the same could be said about the suspects he was writing about, and he got fairly serious errors there as well. I would think overall we'd half to chalk most of it up to either misinformation or disinformation to explain all these problems, though I suppose it could be a little of both.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2863
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Thanks Dan
I agree with you, probably misinformation leading to disinformation.
Personally I have never seen much malicious about Macnaghten’s document but rather an appalling naivety on his part.
However, and this must be said, there are some pretty furious folk out there who take this as their Bible, and then brook no complaint about the dubious Memo; and then in combination with the Sun reports use that to dissemble any notion that Thomas Cutbush could have been the Whitechapel Murderer.
These pretty furious folk know who they are; and it is about time that they assembled the documents available to us and used them usefully instead of just trashing any notion that Macnaghten may not have had a single clue what he was talking about.
I think we have now reached a stage in history where we can confidently dismiss Macnaghten’s Memo as evidential in the case of the Whitechapel Murderer.
It is in fact totally spurious. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2642
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
I cant help returning to Abberline"s behaviour vis a vis the Cleveland Street Scandal in 1889.If there was ever any doubt that Abberline was involved in some kind of "cover up" regarding people in high places such doubt ought to be dispelled by the report in The Times of 24 Jan 1890.Referring specifically to Abberline"s failure to arrest Charles Hammond,the proprietor of 29 Cleveland Street.Instead,presumably with a nod from his superiors ,Abberline allowed Hammond and Lord Arthur Somerset to escape to France and therefore avoid stading trial over the Cleveland Street scandal.
This news clip [which is posted on the casebook under Police officers, Abberline] uses quite strong language to object to Abberline "perverting the course of justice".The report suggests that the Times crime reporter was outraged at Abberline"s blatant complicity in the covering up of such a scandal.
The reason I quote it is because it makes clear
that "Chief Inspectors" such as Abberline and other high ups in the police such as Machnaghten etc were not beyond tampering with the Course of Justice when it was in their best interests to.
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2866
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 5:58 pm: |
|
You are right on course here, Natalie.
As I've said many times, it is not only the case you highlight that throws doubts on Abberline's veracity as a credible witness, there are many other incidents as well.
As we know from documents of the time, the entire detective force of the Metropolitan force was in dire straits at this time, and credibility was in short supply.
I would once again stress the salient fact that uncle Charles was occupying a position of immense power at the time at Scotland Yard, and we all know that he was a complete and utter maniac who believed the Catholics of England were poisoning the water supply of London and giving him headaches.
And because his head hurt he shot it.
Now how rational and level headed is that?
These are the sort of folk you deal with here, Natalie.
There are many here who will try to persuade you that the senior police officers of the LVP were rational human beings.
Not a bit of it. Just like the whores that Jack killed, they were victims of the LVP. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2643
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 6:42 pm: |
|
It surprised me to read last week in Dan"s publication just how bedevilled they were, concurrent with the ripper rampage, regarding agents provocateurs / infiltrators into the Fenian/dynamitard movement and the extent to which they gave chase over the Atlantic.The pressure on them in 1888/89 seems to have been colossal and seemed to be coming from all directions at once.
It seems unsurpising then that Charles Cutbush"s brain "gave way altogether" and developed into full blown paranoid insanity !He was probably seeing papist plots everywhere he turned-not just in his water supplies and having Thomas banged up for life and named as Jack the Ripper in the National Press was possibly the last straw!
You can"t really blame Abberline for getting out quick and hoofing it to the French Riviera---it might have been the loony bin for him too had he stayed on a moment longer in his house round the corner from his colleague Charles Cutbush and the hysterical Cutbush mother and aunt.....
Natalie
Do you know whether Collicot continued to go on living down the road from them all? |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 85
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 9:44 pm: |
|
AP,
If it is true that Charles Cutbush was occupying a position of immense power at the time at Scotland Yard, can the Macnaghten memo be seen as a way to curry favor with the elder Charles by way of a defense of his nephew? Macnaghten might have arranged for it to "accidently" be seen by Charles.
c.d. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 493
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
A.P.,
I assume your reference to "someone' making furious (and by implication blind and ill-informed)defences of the M.M. refers to my encounter with Stan Russo some months ago.
I am very busy in other directions at the moment and cannot possibly allot the adequate time required to respond to your sometimes telling, sometimes not, remarks made above.
Suffice it at the moment, to say, if you read carefully again my posts referred to above, I was trying to point out to SR that his arguments were not all based upon facts; his assessment of Melville Macnaghten, like yours is a bit too sweeping. Both inject an element of emotion into it.
You, like SR, have your chief suspect already in view. You are now seeking (further?) evidence.
I know: slaughter of helpless, homeless, penniless women in the East End of London or anywhere was all too common and accepted by the "authorities".
And you have done good work in digging up some interesting pre-Ripper examples to reinforce that point.I agree with you there.
To say I am an apologist for the MM is a bit too cute. I have frequently couched my counters to criticism of Macnaghten's remarks with qualifications.
It is good to see you saying what you think about my "defence" of the Macnaghten Memorandum, A.P.
After all, you must have been stewing about it for quite some time.
I was thinking of quitting these boards because of extraordinary goings-on here in recent times. I shall have to delay that a while, till we have talked this matter out. I don't want a slanging match.You are a robust debater.
I am sure you were not referring solely to me, but because you chose not to name your target(s) I may be jumping to conclusions. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2650
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
Hi John,
Without getting involved in any of the specifics of the disagreement[or not] that you are raising above with Ap, I myself believe that it is of crucial importance to examine the words
of the Chiefs of Police involved in the ripper investigation with much more rigour than they appear to have been so far.
AP is 100% correct about the dismissal of Thomas Cutbush,as a ripper suspect,solely it appears, on the Macnaghten Memorandum.
I have been absolutely astonished at how sussessful this memo has been in allowing Thomas Cutbush to be dismissed as a serious Jack the Ripper suspect by Macnaghten"s mere sleight of hand"!
Peter Sudgen refused even to "examine" the proposition in his otherwise excellent book "The Complete History of....
Likewise Donald Rumbelow [another highly respected author regarding the Whitechapel Murders] gives precisely the reason AP refers to [page 140 The Complete JtR] viz,
"....a man named Colicott was arrested,but subsequently discharged owing to faulty identification".....er.....say that again!
Paul Begg gives Cutbush a "cursory glance" while looking at the reasons for the memo but so far none of these esteemed authors have seemed to think it worthwhile to treat Cutbush as a serious subject.
At least part of the reasoning behind this seems to be their reliance on the word of these Victorian Chiefs of Police and There is a reluctance to examine,objectively,the veracity/integrity/reliability...or otherwise of such esteemed figures.
Indeed, until very recently,I did too. I was extremely surprised for example to come across the Times Press report suggesting Abberline had perverted the course of Justice regarding the Cleveland Street Scandal.[which doesnt alter the fact that he was a first rate "hands on" detective during the Autumn of 1888].
I didnt know either until recently that Anderson was considered by many at the time, to be "flighty with the truth"-Randolph Churchill"s very words I believe.[ Anderson had slandered and defamed Parnell in the press and allegedly lied through his teeth about it-although later admitting it].
Macnaghten? ....Well he seems to have suffered from some very significant,possibly also convenient, "memory losses" in that
practically everyone he "fingers" starting with Druitt has the facts about themselves in a total
confusing muddle!.........and it seems he had his facts again muddled up when it came to the Cutbush/Colicott saga!
None of this makes Thomas Cutbush the Ripper ofcourse---or Druitt or Kosminski et al
but atleast we might take stock from time to time
and look again at the "half-truths" for motive, as well as accuracy .
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Actually John, I was not referring to you on this occasion.
I always enjoy your posts, and find that your damn good commonsense combined with your very useful knowledge always brings me back to earth when I start to flap a bit.
So, no, not you at all, but rather a brace of authors and editors who seem to have taken a certain stance in this regard and will not be persuaded by the solid facts of the matter.
I think it would be an interesting experiment to actually count the number of false details and misinformation contained in the Memo; and then match that against any true detail and information in the Memo… and then watch the balance swing.
I’ll start that now.
My apologies for causing you unnecessary concern over this.
As I said, I’m always glad to see you, and don’t you even dare to entertain the idea of leaving these boards.
Such as you are sorely required. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2874
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
Very nicely said and done, Natalie.
You even told me things I didn’t know!
Like I didn’t know Rumble-On had also perpetuated the myth concerning our little man Collicot.
That makes two little myths the fellow has been purveying as unsullied goods while we all know them to be terribly tainted.
I think everyone concerned here knows very well that yourself, Debra, Robert, myself, and quite a few others, work just as hard to produce very real evidence to show that Thomas Cutbush was not the Whitechapel Murderer, as we do to produce evidence that may implicate the young sapling.
The classic examples being Robert’s discovery of the court cases involving Thomas’ estate which gave his family very real motive to have him locked away as a lunatic; and then my own re-examination of Thomas’ own defence - not heard in court - to the charges of ’jobbing’, a defence which definitely leaves me personally with sincere doubts as to whether Thomas ever ’jobbed’ anyone. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 494
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 2:42 am: |
|
A.P.,
Sorry to go off half-loaded A.P., I apologise. I was probably being a bit too presumptuous .
Now, I do agree that most of us have taken the MM far-too-unquestionly, and I had not realised that such luminaries as you name Natalie, were included.
I do agree, that Macnaghten, his Memorandum and his motives connected thereto, all need a long forensic disection by sharp-eyed 'tecs like you, A. P., Natalie and some male posters who seem to have gone quiet lately.
For a start, there is his use of the subjective term "prodding" which appears to give an impression of lesser seriousness to Colicott's crimes.
That said, I do think there are some defendable aspects of Macnaghten's behaviour and I do not see a landscape of wholesale disinformation so clearly as A.P. All these things I will happily discuss.
Thank you for your common sense A.P., in the wee dark hours you can creep back to my out-burst posting and compose imaginary outburst replies.
Thanks Natalie for your well thought out posts and levening abilities.
Lead on, A.P. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2879
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
No worries, John.
I hadn't noticed the reference to 'prodding' until you pointed it out.
That is an interesting way to refer to Collicot's crimes.
Yes, let's bash this out like gentlemen... and ladies. |
Scott Nelson
Inspector
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
Macnaghten's belief of a "faulty identification" of Colocitt was probably based on Colocitt's defence lawyer who stated that, "several other ladies who had been assaulted in a similar manner had failed to identify him." The Times 21 February 1891 - not because of deliberate distortion by Macnaghten. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2887
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
No, I disagree Scott.
Collicit was found guilty because he had been clearly identified by a police witness as the man stabbing women in that specific area, the witness had actually grappled with Collicit as he was stabbing the woman.
Macnaghten claims in his Memo that Collicit had been 'discharged' because of 'faulty identification'.
This is the misinformation, because Collicit was found guilty as charged because of a flawless identification. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 765
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
AP - Yes and No. Re-read the account of Mr. Meyers, the furniture dealer who caught Colocott red-handed. The key word is "handed." It still doesn't appear to me that Colocott even had a weapon on him. He was found guilty, yes, but this was before the news of Cutbush hit the fan. Afterwards, lunatic #1 gets to go home to Mom & Pop, and lunatic #2 gets sent up for her Majesty's displeasure. Someone UK side really ought to chase down & see if the Daily News or Telegraph covered these stories in more detail. Here's my private goat and send it off into the wilderness if you want. One hell of a lot happened between Oct 1890 and March, 1891. (The death of Mrs. Hogg up to the investigation of Sadler). And yet, obsessed with a few short months in 1888, this important span of time has been all but neglected by researchers. A pity, imho. RP |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2888
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Quite right, RP.
I should have been more correct with the detail.
It appeared to Meyers that Colocott - or however his name is spelt, I thought it was actually Colicitt - was making stabbing movements with his hand... you are of course right, no weapon was mentioned.
But this does not mean a weapon was not involved, as I have the impression the woman concerned was injured.
We are back in the same situation as with James Johnson where he had a few moments to rid himself of any guilt, and Colicitt certainly had the same opportunity on the day of his arrest as he managed to break free from Meyers before shortly being collared by a PC.
I agree with you, someone UK side really should delve further into press reports from this period.
If I were not a prisoner of the Dukes of Normandy I would do the job myself. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2659
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Hi Folks,
Given all this mix up that seems to have taken place over who exactly did what,I decided to get cracking and begin to track down the local newspapers regarding the "Jobbing" offences allegedly committed by the Cutbush /Collicot/Collicit[?] boys.
I rang Lambeth library and the chap there was very helpful but became rather stressed during the course of our conversation trying to deal with more than one querie at once!
He laughed when I said one lived in Albert Road and the other round the corner in Aldebert Street and the one was called Cutbush and the other Collicot and their jobbing activities both came to light in February 1891 soon after the Coles murder.At this point our conversation
stopped briefly while I composed myself,said the Serenity Prayer and thought about the 3 "C"s----"you didnt Cause it,you cant Control it and you cant Cure it"!
Joking aside,it actually does come across to people as a bit incredulous-two young guys living
round the corner from each other with similar sounding names,addresses and offences.Nobody has ever heard of "jobbing" either so they start to wonder if you are taking the mick on top of everything else!
Anyway,we established that the offences would have been recorded in local papers and I was given a list of these weekly rags that I can peruse either in Lambeth or at the Collindale
Newspaper library.I think it will have to wait until New Year now----with Christmas coming earlier every year.We"ll see.
Natalie |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 766
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
With all the tedious and infinitely boring bellowing about "unsupported evidence" that seems to now threaten to drive away what is left of the intelligensia in these parts, I would be saddened to see Mr. Ruffles hit the road like so many others already have. It's a rare fellow who can see beyond the dead wall of cynicism and keeping on thinking. Does the world really need another pedestrian article about how press reports can be garbled, or old men can make errors? It seems to me it rather needs more blokes like Mr. Ruffles who knows the value of legitimate speculation in trying to think oneself out of this confusing muddle known as the Whitechapel Murders. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 767
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
PS. Oh, and excuse my sexism in the above. One doesn't need to be a 'fellow' or a 'bloke,' of course. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5330
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
There's some local stuff I posted at http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/discus.cgi?pg=next&topic=4922&page=16446
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2895
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
I think RP makes a very valid point here.
We should be able to run with information and see where it takes us, fair enough when someone trips us up in that headlong rush we must accept that with good grace and humour, roll over on our backs and say ‘I did it.’
But, by the very next bottle of brandy I drink, which will be very shortly, I swear that I will never hide behind a closed door with some brilliant idea or information but instead will grab that and run as fast as I can… until tripped up.
Then with good grace and humour I will say ‘I did it’.
Anything else is pants. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2660
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Thanks for the link Robert,I had forgotten all about it!
A few things impressed upon me.I noticed that
apart from the mention of the two institutions
Thomas Cutbush had been placed in there was no other address given for him in the reports.
I noted too that the exact dates of these incidents, alleged to have been committed by
Cutbush are omitted.....do you happen to know when they took place?
I noticed that the women who had been attacked by Collicot suffered significant shock and definite injury from the attacks[off work/cuts in flesh etc]whereas the information about what Cutbush is alleged to have done is minimal so far...
odd about the toy dagger!Hmmmm! |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2661
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Why does everybody have to be "better than" or "lesser than" RP?
What you might take to be "intelligensia" another might take to be a pompous old fart!
The quest is surely for everyone to partake in-not a "select" elite.
If the proof of the pudding is in the eating
then none of these erudite "scholars in Ripperology" have come any nearer than anyone else in solving this mystery so far.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2662
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
To John Ruffels
I absolutely am not referring to you [or anyone else in particular]here.
I always find your posts enlightening and interesting John and would be saddened if indeed you were ever to think of taking off because of tedium and boredom.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5331
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
Between Macnaghten, the local press and the Times, it's difficult to get a clear idea of exactly which victim was attacked when. But surely "Thursday evening week" is wrong, for that would mean one of the attacks occurred March 12th, according to my calculations.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2664
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Robert,
I cant work out what the dates were either.Maybe there are other more precise reports?They quoted several papers to me today--south london Mail;South London Record;Clapham Observer;Brixton Free Press;Brixton and Streathem Times.
Better leave it there or those with PH D"s in Ripperology may start to have kittens. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5332
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 3:41 am: |
|
Hi Natalie
If you're going there, best to make sure that all these papers were around in the 1890s. From what I can recall, there may not have been that many.
Lambeth's fee seemed a bit stiff, and I couldn't get up there at the time, so a nice lady who lives in Lambeth went in and got photocopies for me.
Robert |
Stephen Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
This post will not appear here for several days from now, so it may have been superceded but here goes. I have never seen any information as to how and where Thomas Cutbush was apprehended for his 'jobbing' crimes. As I understand it, some young ladies were 'jobbed' in the Kennington area of South London where Thomas lived, some time after Collicott had been found guilty of the same sort of crime but before he was sentenced. Can someone tell me if Collicott was incarcerated at this time or out on bail. And can anyone say exactly how and where and by whom and why Cutbush was arrested. As I see it the 'jobbed' young ladies did not see their attacker, and Cutbush denied he did it in court. Perhaps there was an unknown third 'jobber' and perhaps also Cutbush was fitted up for these particular crimes. I am genuinely confused as to the exact circumstances of Cutbush's arrest and would be grateful if somebody can supply this information. I do know, of course, that at the self-same time the police were looking to apprehend him as an escaped lunatic as this was described in the 'Sun' articles. |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
If it helps, Stephen has scanned an 1889 list of London newspapers.
Cheers,
Dave |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2670
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Thanks for the link Dave.I will study it more thoroughly over the week end.Have been trying to navigate my way round a new laptop all evening-frustrating!
Natalie |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 497
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 2:42 am: |
|
Dear All,
It is good that A.P.'s dynamite opening salvos produce some useful delving as well as the odd bit of minor cordite smoke from the side!
Unravelling this Cutbush/Collicutt brace of cases will certainly clear the air for a sharper, more accurate look at what Melville Macnaghten was trying to say in his MM.
For instance, and this is just whimsey, what if Macnaghten was being super-obfuscatiory in his MM and -as we have all noticed- when you examine the case against his "three suspects more likely..",the evidence appears to be flimsey and mainly unsupportable.
He might be saying: here is the evidence against three suspects which evaporates on investigation,
who are more likely than Cutbush to be Jack The Ripper.
A very clever way of saying Cutbush was not the Ripper!
My thanks to R.J.Palmer for his kind and supportive comments about me.
And to Natalie for her prompt reassurance she was not calling me a "boring old fart" or one of the intelligentsia. I genuinely agree.
One of my Casebook heroes, (and singling out is invidious), is Robert Charles Linford. Unselfish and a keen, terrier-like chaser-up of "things".
Natalie expresses herself very well and has the sharp,questioning, mind much required on these boards.
More sharp minds, fewer sharp tongues that's what we need.
Now, about these "prodders"... |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5338
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 4:52 am: |
|
Thanks for the kind words, John. And it's largely down to you that Druitt remains a seriously discussed suspect on these Boards.
It's a shame that these rows flare up. I have the feeling that some posters, if transported by time machine to 1888, would tell Jack : "No, you're doing it all wrong."
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2671
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 8:25 am: |
|
Thanks John-I really appreciate those words---and agree over the rest of what you say.
Natalie |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 768
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
John Ruffles - Hi. There's something I've never liked about the way the memo has been approached, and it makes me very hesitant to accept the easy answers to these riddles. Here's something that may or may not be worth your consideration. How can we be sure that Macnaghten's flub about Druitt's occupation isn't the "residue" of an earlier, deliberate lie? You see, I disagree with most people about Macnaghten, and the worth of his memo. Outside his remarks about Druitt's occupation, I don't see where it can be proven to be inaccurate. There is certainly no proof that his statements about Ostrog or Kosminski or Cutbush are widely or even mildly inaccurate, and it seems to me that their oddities have logical and reasonable explanations. It's just that we are only seeing them through a key-hole. But with Druitt it is different. A question worth asking is 'why is it different?' Misinformation? If so, why? What was the source of the misinformation about Druitt's occupation, Macnaghten himself, or someone else? The easy answer is that Macnaghten is a boob, but, as I say, I don't like easy answers. The MP from the Western County claimed that a man was seen with blood on his clothing shortly after the murder of Kelly, and associated this man with a son of a surgeon. No doubt the cynics will disregard this as urban folklore, but there is no reasonable way to know whether or not it is true. It certainly could be true. So how about this? Could this bloody fellow have been 'explained away' with the lie that he was a medical man? What about the possibility that Druitt's own family spread that misinformation for some reason yet unknown? These questions are unanswerable at present and may remain so. I am also interested in the possibility that the Cutbush/Druitt/or Kosminski investigations may have touched base at some point. It seems, for instance, somewhat odd to me that the surveillance of Aaron Kosminski seems to have coincided with the spate of 'jobbings' in Kennington. The investigation of the Coles murder seemed to be bringing something into focus. But what was it? The first revelations of the Druitt rumor/theory seem to have also dated to this same era. What the hell was going on? This is one reason why I think much can still be learned about the events of late 1890 to early 1891 in hopes of addressing some of these questions. Best wishes, RP. PS to Natalie: I think you may have slightly misunderstood me. (my fault entirely) I dont' advocate elitism, only positive and constructive thinking. Personally, I'm a little down on the debunkers, because I don't think there is any real risk of the lunatics taking control of the asylum; the objective 'case evidence' has reached critical mass long ago. rather, the greater risk is the wardens jading and stilting this 'field' by endorsing an atmosphere of intense cynicism. When I go down, I'm going down with broken fingernails and a bloody brow. I've decided to side with the theorists, whether they inhabit Broadmoor or not. In short, I also agree with Mr. Ruffel's last sentence. Take care!
(Message edited by rjpalmer on December 03, 2005) |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2913
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
RP
to be fair to Cutbush, Macnaghten does make at least four major errors in his reporting of the Cutbush case.
When added to his reporting of the Collicit case that makes it six errors.
I do take on board what you say here, and the thrust of your 'jobbing', and think you to have right on your side.
But personally I do feel the gross import of the Memo to be in the single sentence where Macnaghten throws in - almost as an aside - that Thomas Hayne Cutbush was the nephew of the late Supr.
He did not have to say that.
But he did.
One simple reason. The Supr. was dead. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2676
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Rp
I am often mindful in this mystery of the famous words of Peter Abelard,theologian/philosopher of the Middle Ages.
When arguing over whether he should accept unquestioningly Anselm"s belief ,'"I must believe in order that I may understand" Abelard responded with,"I must understand in order that I may believe".He said ,"by doubting we come to questioning and by questioning we perceive the truth".
Pretty good thinking for the middle ages and not bad for today when we try to sort the wheat from the chaff- esp when examining the contradictory statements from those in charge of the case!
Best
Natalie |
Scott Nelson
Inspector
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
'The investigation of the Coles murder seemed to be bringing something into focus.'
Absolutely, R.J. A lot was going on with the case in early 1891. Sadler is brought before a Mitre Square witness one week after Kosminski permanently goes to the asylum...no surviving police records of this encounter, and so on. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2679
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
-----and Thomas Cutbush was placed in custody within
just days of Sadlers release from being charged with the murder of Frances Coles! |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 770
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 6:47 pm: |
|
AP - I'm on your side as you push ahead, but I don't see Macnaghten's errors concerning Colocott. MM said that he was arrested but released due to a faulty indentification. Yes, this may be poorly worded, but might it not be true "in spirit?" He was found guilty but then there was that odd delay before sentencing. while the Cutbush case was investigated. I think one could make a sound speculation that the court was saving face by giving him a token sentence, but quietly threw out the conviction behind-the-scenes. If you recall, the 1891 census shows Colocott home alone, despite the fact that the court had ordered him to be given a live-in keeper. Keep digging. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2919
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Yes, RJP, you might be quite right in classifying Macnaghten’s statement in regard to Colocitt as some kind of ‘reasonable doubt’ on his part; and thus in the behaviour of the court on the day of trial. But had ‘reasonable doubt’ really been established in the court?
I think not.
Obviously some kind of quick compromise was achieved by council for defence and prosecution when they had their ‘consultation’ on Colocitt’s final appearance. And that compromise was handed to Mr. Somes who then passed down his gentle slap on the wrist.
It is remarkable that the defence council, Mr Lowe, asked for a postponement of sentence on Colocitt on the 19th March to look into the possibility of misidentification of his client - which was granted - but then very quickly the court is again back in action on the 21st March, barely two days later, resulting in the mild sentence.
I’m at a loss to explain how - if it really was a case of mistaken identity - that the issue was resolved in what must have been a matter of a very few hours.
Clearly if there had been direct evidence of a case of mistaken identity, Colocitt would have been ‘discharged’ - as Macnaghten claims he was - rather than sentenced, which we know he was.
The policy of the court appears to me to dictate that the issue was a confused one, which led to a compromise on the behalf of the prosecution - who obviously believed that Colocitt was guilty; and who - especially after a juror had been found legally incapacitated (grounds for a retrial in any court) in court during evidence - wanted quickly to bring proceedings to a end while they were still ahead.
It is not Macnaghten’s sloppiness that is annoying here, it is his floppiness.
On one hand he assures that the element of faulty identification is a very real one indeed; and then blow me down, in the very next line of his memo he produces absolutely unquestionable evidence to conclusively demonstrate that the two young men are totally distinguishable by their individual crimes:
‘The cuts in the girl’s dresses made by Colocitt were quite different to the cut made by Cutbush.’
Then why the devil didn’t someone say so in court?
It is obvious that the police had a ready tool to absolutely identify the perpetrator in each of the crimes, and equally obvious that they never used this crucial tool.
Why the devil not?
Magnaghten’s last statement here is also a free and easy admission of Colocitt’s guilt.
Simple as that.
Macnaghten is a man who wants God and Darwin both. |
HRAK
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 11:44 am: |
|
A little thought bubble:
Just perhaps we should say a quiet thank you to Sir Melville as he was the only officer serving at the Yard who was able to put the name of Thomas Cutbush into the official file along with a description of his antecedents which reads something like a pro forma profile of a serial killer.
The Sun described Cutbush as JTR but they did not NAME him.
Sir M did.
The Sun refers to their suspect’s relatives as, “…unfortunate, innocent, and respectable connections…”
It is Sir M who gives us that they are referring to “…the late Supt.Executive.”
If we believe Cutbush to be JTR, Sir M must have known that the three “preferred” suspects were duds and that no amount of work could prove any of them to be JTR.
Which brings us back to why Sir M wrote the memo.
Was it a serious attempt to provide a “briefing memo” to be used if and when someone asked the obvious awkward question about The Sun’s articles?
Or just perhaps… maybe Sir M had an eye to history in framing his curious memo.
Where would we be without it? |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
