Assessing Cutbush

[rjpalmer]

So far on this thread we've learned:

1. Cutbush is a good suspect because he raped a prostitute.
2. Cutbush is a bad suspect because he raped a prostitute.

Meanwhile, there is no legitimate historical source showing that Cutbush ever raped a prostitute.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the subject of syphilis and revenge Tracy said this in The Sun:

“The writer of this article once saw a soldier - a quiet, almost gentle creature, with fine brown eyes and an intellectual face and mind - tried for the murder of an unfortunate woman whom he had not seen for nearly 20 years, and whom he murdered immediately after his return from a long period of service in India.

The originating cause of this mania in most cases is the ravages of the mind caused by constitutional disease, and the desire to avenge the wrong on the class from which it was supposed to have spring. This is one of the many reasons which make it plain that Jack the Ripper would be a man past his first boyhood; old enough to have undergone years of severe suffering - mental and physical. It is often found that the idea of having contracted the disease, though unfounded, produces the same form of mania.”

From this Bullock got to this:

“Travelling back to Tudor Street, he contemplated what might have led Cutbush to assault the prostitute. Sitting inside the cab as it traversed the irregular cobblestones leading towards London Bridge, his mind wandered to a man he had once known during his time working in India, a soldier of quiet temperament and gentle nature, who went on to commit a most horrendous crime. Tracy recalled the surprise he had felt when, after serving twenty years, the soldier returned to his homeland and on arrival in England, without warning or hesitation, murdered a prostitute in cold blood. From what he knew of him, the soldier had contracted syphilis from the same prostitute two decades earlier and though many years had passed, on returning home he was overtaken with the desire for revenge. It threw up the possibility that Cutbush had come to believe that the prostitute whom he attacked had given him syphilis, the disease for which he had sought treatment when contacting Dr Brooks in July of 1888.”

We have no clue of course how Bullock got this:

“Unable to look directly at her guest, choosing instead to cast her gaze towards the parlour window, Clara replied: ‘There was one woman. He saw her often, so we were led to believe. Our nephew wasn’t inclined to keep such matters from us, Mr Tracy, though most men would, I’m sure. The relationship, if you can call it that, stopped quite suddenly.’ ‘And this happened – when?’ asked Tracy. ‘The exact date escapes me, though it was prior to 1888, of that I am sure,’ replied Clara. Though seemingly hesitant to explain fully the reason behind the relationship ending, Clara eventually admitted all she knew, stating that while in a fit of rage her nephew had viciously attacked and raped the woman whom he had been seeing.”

[The Rookie Detective]

It may also be worth noting that there are several newspaper articles that reference Cutbush as "James Cutbush" rather than Thomas.

With an apparent use of "cut and paste" it is difficult to ascertain where the initial report on Cutbush actually originated, and which publications simply reprinted the original without verifying their facts.

[etenguy]

I am a little late to this thread, having been away from the Boards for a while. But having seen it, and in light of Herlock's initial well argued post, I decided to vote on the basis of what I knew about this suspect. Herlock makes some good points concerning Cutbush attributes that would match those of the whitechapel murderer, but nevertheless, I voted 'an unlikely possible'. Possible for the reasons Herlock provides, but the reasons I find him an unlikely suspect are:

a - there is no direct evidence linking Cutbush to the ripper crimes
b - although Cutbush did attack women, none of the crimes that we know he committed involved the distinctive mutilations associated with the Ripper killings, nor anything like them.
c - MacNaughten stated that other men were more likely to be the ripper than Cutbush and while not ruling him out, was clear he was not high on his list of suspects.
d - Professor David Wilson (and a number of other experts), argue that people with severe mental illnesses like Cutbush generally do not possess the ability to carry out ripper like murders - that type of murder requires traits that don’t align with Cutbush’s mental condition.
e - while Herlock rightly states that serial killers do just stop or have long gaps sometimes, there is no obvious reason for Cutbush to have stopped (such as incarceration, illness or death - which provide reasons for some other suspects).
f - while Herlock does not find the change in later attacks on women an issue with Cutbush's candidacy, I do. He was no doubt violent, but throat cutting and mutilations of the genital and abdomen replaced by stabbings in back, I think show a quite different intent and process.

I am open to arguements and new evidence, but based on what I know about Cutbush I don't find him a likely candidate.

[Lewis C]

I am a little late to this thread, having been away from the Boards for a while. But having seen it, and in light of Herlock's initial well argued post, I decided to vote on the basis of what I knew about this suspect. Herlock makes some good points concerning Cutbush attributes that would match those of the whitechapel murderer, but nevertheless, I voted 'an unlikely possible'. Possible for the reasons Herlock provides, but the reasons I find him an unlikely suspect are:

a - there is no direct evidence linking Cutbush to the ripper crimes
b - although Cutbush did attack women, none of the crimes that we know he committed involved the distinctive mutilations associated with the Ripper killings, nor anything like them.
c - MacNaughten stated that other men were more likely to be the ripper than Cutbush and while not ruling him out, was clear he was not high on his list of suspects.
d - Professor David Wilson (and a number of other experts), argue that people with severe mental illnesses like Cutbush generally do not possess the ability to carry out ripper like murders - that type of murder requires traits that don’t align with Cutbush’s mental condition.
e - while Herlock rightly states that serial killers do just stop or have long gaps sometimes, there is no obvious reason for Cutbush to have stopped (such as incarceration, illness or death - which provide reasons for some other suspects).
f - while Herlock does not find the change in later attacks on women an issue with Cutbush's candidacy, I do. He was no doubt violent, but throat cutting and mutilations of the genital and abdomen replaced by stabbings in back, I think show a quite different intent and process.

I am open to arguements and new evidence, but based on what I know about Cutbush I don't find him a likely candidate.

Hi etenguy,

I think I voted very good suspect, where by "very good", I meant compared to the other suspects. It's arguable that all or almost all of the suspects are "unlikely possible" at best, including Cutbush. But I don't think any fare very well by your list above. The witness suspects are the only ones that satisfy (a). William Bury is the only one that satisfies (b). Druitt, Kosminski, and Ostrog are the only suspects that Mac said were better suspects than Cutbush, Ostrog can be ruled out for other reasons, and we don't know who "Kosminski" was (though we have reasonable possibilities).

Wilson may have said that the killer was unlikely to be mentally ill, but another profiler said that the killer was likely someone like David Cohen, who was mentally ill, I'd think even more than Cutbush was.

[Fiver]

This is from Christine and Jonathan Hainsworth.

A nephew of the late, famous Dr Robert Druitt was arrested in 1887 for allegedly trying to stab an East End "fallen woman". The victim dropped the accusation because either they were lying, or fearful, or were quietly bought off. This young gentleman, Montague Druitt, a talented barrister and cricketer was by 1889 deceased - he had killed himself in late 1888.

If there's a source for Montague Druitt trying to stab a woman, that would make him a significantly better suspect. Do the Hainsworths give a source?

Since there were subsequent East End murders which were probably by "Jack", then Mr Druitt had the most unbreakable alibi.

After Montague Druitt's death, there are no murders with close enough signature to be considered probably by the Ripper. The closest we have is Alice Mackenzie, which was possible, but unlikely.

[Fiver]

I put him as an 'unlikely possible', which to me means a better than average suspect.

[mklhawley]

Fiver, this is the Hainsworths' reply to your post:

Just consider the implications of what you are saying; you know more about Druitt's likely culpability than people who lived at the time, who knew him, a few who were related to him. Is that really plausible??

Two other researchers whose name I don't have permission to use, as yet, found newspaper reports of a "barrister" arrested in 1887 for allegedly stabbing an East End sex worker, but the case fizzled out.

The accused gentleman's name is not mentioned. But it would explain how Druitt's name ended up on Ripper list the following year, and why it was treated as fact by his family and Macnaghten that he suffered from sexual insanity, e.g. gained erotic fulfillment from committing acts of violence.

[Fiver]

Fiver, this is the Hainsworths' reply to your post:

Just consider the implications of what you are saying; you know more about Druitt's likely culpability than people who lived at the time, who knew him, a few who were related to him. Is that really plausible??

That's rather ironic, considering they are saying they know more about Druitt's likely culpability than people who lived at the time, who knew him, a few who were related to him.

We have no direct statements from Druitt's family or friends about Druitt's likely culpability. Most police of the time dismissed Druitt as a suspect.

Two other researchers whose name I don't have permission to use, as yet, found newspaper reports of a "barrister" arrested in 1887 for allegedly stabbing an East End sex worker, but the case fizzled out.

The accused gentleman's name is not mentioned.

Without a name, that is not evidence against Druitt or anyone else.

Lets look at the newspaper reports. Here's the 24 September Daily News.



Note that last sentence - "She has given several different versions of the affair."

Here's the 2 October, 1887 Reynold's Newspaper, where Cameron says she was attacked by a policeman.



Here's the 2 October, 1887 Lloyd's Weekly News.



Here Cameron denies that her attacker was a barrister or a police. She might be an early failed attempt by the Ripper, but there's not enough evidence to name anyone as her attacker.

[Fiver]

The accused gentleman's name is not mentioned. But it would explain how Druitt's name ended up on Ripper list the following year, and why it was treated as fact by his family and Macnaghten that he suffered from sexual insanity, e.g. gained erotic fulfillment from committing acts of violence.

We have no direct statements from the family about Druitt's guilt, so we cannot state "it was treated as fact by his family".

[caz]

Hi Lewis,

I agree. I wouldn’t have expected the killer to have travelled miles but within a reasonable distance. I’m not saying that the killer couldn’t have lived locally but another issue for a killer local would have been the potential, however slight, of being recognised. That he targeted that area certainly suggests that he had at least some familiarity with it.

Then again….there was Aldgate tube station for example. There is the possibility of the killer having a bolt hole somewhere. Maybe he worked in the area and had access to premises (shed/outbuilding etc)

I tend to agree with this, Herlock. I doubt the Ripper would have risked engaging with a prospective victim who could have known him by name or sight, or might previously have offered him her 'services'. The reason a killer of strangers is so hard to catch is because his victims wouldn't know him from Adam and cannot be linked to him in life or death.

Where the victims died can only tell us where they lived, and that it suited their killer to target that same small area - indicating some basic familiarity with the streets and main roads, but not necessarily much more than that. Knowing there were many desperate women out alone at night, and knowing how to 'disappear' from those streets quickly, would have been enough to tempt him back again, from wherever he happened to be living or lodging at the time. I think living right on top of his victims of choice could have been more of a disadvantage, while being at some distance when not out on the prowl would have helped to keep himself safe - and well away from all those looking for him close to the murder locations.

Being able to place a suspect outside of Whitechapel can only eliminate him if he had neither the time nor the opportunity to get to the right location when a victim was in the process of being selected and then murdered. That's why I see Lechmere as low hanging fruit for suspect theorists. He was undoubtedly in the right place at the right time for one murder - but that's it. It's not good enough.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Here Cameron denies that her attacker was a barrister or a police. She might be an early failed attempt by the Ripper, but there's not enough evidence to name anyone as her attacker.

John Hainsworth obviously revealed enough information that you were able trace the reference to Cameron. I am one of the people who has known about this incident for a number of years; since I am writing a modest monograph on the subject, I kept it to myself. It has since been independently discovered by a least one other researcher.

I must admit that John is playing it fast & loose in claiming the barrister was arrested, and that Cameron was an "East End sex worker." That's overstating the facts as I know them.

However, I don't think this incident sails as blissfully away into the breeze as you wish to imply. When dealing with criminal matters, knee-jerk skepticism can be just as sterile as knee-jerk gullibility--perhaps more so.

Correctly interpreted, the police were looking for a barrister at the end of 1888 who was said to be 'sexually insane'--who (according to Macnaghten's 'private information') was suspected by his own family of being involved in the Whitechapel Murders. Macnaghten was distantly related to the Druitts and no doubt received a great of private information in his position, so his assertion is credible. I can't help noticing that most people who bash Macnaghten seldom spell his name correctly.

Meanwhile, here we have an unnamed barrister who--lo and behold--is mentioned in a knife attack on a prostitute the previous year, 1887. The 'coincidence' strikes me as rather interesting.

No, there is no definite evidence that this was Druitt--that I know of---but what other barristers were being sought as Jack the Ripper within the next 13 or 14 months?

Can you name one?

When I came across this attack, I did indeed think of MJD because it would neatly explain why the police may have taken him seriously as a suspect a year later if his name had come up in this earlier investigation.

We don't know where Cameron picked up her client, but from descriptions given, she must have walked with three or four hundred yards of Kings Bench Walk---possibly less--where Druitt had chambers.

I don't dismiss it out of hand, particularly because I think historians have done a poor job when it comes to Druitt.

As for the victim 'denying that her attacker was a barrister" you are mispresenting the facts. She claimed her attacker WAS a barrister--and later retracted it. That's considerably different than what you're claiming.

So, perhaps you'd be better off asking yourself why victims sometimes retract their statements. Is it always because they were lying or mistaken? Is there not sometimes a very different explanation?

RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

I tend to agree with this, Herlock. I doubt the Ripper would have risked engaging with a prospective victim who could have known him by name or sight, or might previously have offered him her 'services'. The reason a killer of strangers is so hard to catch is because his victims wouldn't know him from Adam and cannot be linked to him in life or death.

Where the victims died can only tell us where they lived, and that it suited their killer to target that same small area - indicating some basic familiarity with the streets and main roads, but not necessarily much more than that. Knowing there were many desperate women out alone at night, and knowing how to 'disappear' from those streets quickly, would have been enough to tempt him back again, from wherever he happened to be living or lodging at the time. I think living right on top of his victims of choice could have been more of a disadvantage, while being at some distance when not out on the prowl would have helped to keep himself safe - and well away from all those looking for him close to the murder locations.

Being able to place a suspect outside of Whitechapel can only eliminate him if he had neither the time nor the opportunity to get to the right location when a victim was in the process of being selected and then murdered. That's why I see Lechmere as low hanging fruit for suspect theorists. He was undoubtedly in the right place at the right time for one murder - but that's it. It's not good enough.

Love,

Caz
X

Good points Caz. I don’t know about you but I’ve always thought it almost a ripper cliché that the killer must have needed local knowledge of the alleyways and rookeries to escape being caught. Surely a general idea of which way he needed to head to get to safety would have been enough? Unless he’d been caught at the scene, by the time that first police whistle went off Constable’s heading toward that whistle were hardly going to arrest every man that they had seen before they had found out what had happened.

[caz]

I am a little late to this thread, having been away from the Boards for a while. But having seen it, and in light of Herlock's initial well argued post, I decided to vote on the basis of what I knew about this suspect. Herlock makes some good points concerning Cutbush attributes that would match those of the whitechapel murderer, but nevertheless, I voted 'an unlikely possible'. Possible for the reasons Herlock provides, but the reasons I find him an unlikely suspect are:

a - there is no direct evidence linking Cutbush to the ripper crimes
b - although Cutbush did attack women, none of the crimes that we know he committed involved the distinctive mutilations associated with the Ripper killings, nor anything like them.
c - MacNaughten stated that other men were more likely to be the ripper than Cutbush and while not ruling him out, was clear he was not high on his list of suspects.
d - Professor David Wilson (and a number of other experts), argue that people with severe mental illnesses like Cutbush generally do not possess the ability to carry out ripper like murders - that type of murder requires traits that don’t align with Cutbush’s mental condition.
e - while Herlock rightly states that serial killers do just stop or have long gaps sometimes, there is no obvious reason for Cutbush to have stopped (such as incarceration, illness or death - which provide reasons for some other suspects).
f - while Herlock does not find the change in later attacks on women an issue with Cutbush's candidacy, I do. He was no doubt violent, but throat cutting and mutilations of the genital and abdomen replaced by stabbings in back, I think show a quite different intent and process.

I am open to arguements and new evidence, but based on what I know about Cutbush I don't find him a likely candidate.

Another point that can be made is that Cutbush became a suspect because he was caught for crimes of violence against women. But these were significantly different from any of the unsolved Ripper series of murders. One could argue that his mental health issues were what led to him committing and failing to get away with the one type of crime, while he could in theory have committed and got away with several crimes of a totally different nature - the ripper murders - if he had been in considerably better mental health and control of himself at the time.

That seems just a little too convenient to me, and a bit like wanting to have one's crazy Cutbush cake and eat it.

Love,

Caz
X