Assessing Cutbush

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz,

I agree that living next door to a victim would have been a disadvantage, but I think that if he had lived a couple of blocks away, that could have been far enough to give him anonymity. And the murders were far enough from each other that he had to have lived more than a couple of blocks from some of the victims.

good point lewis.

Dennis Rader even targeted a victim that lived on his street, blocks away.
And Imho the ripper was probably local and knew the immediate area intimately, I dont think he could have pulled off tje double event without that knowledge, although I dont rule out an "outsider" like Druitt.

[Abby Normal]

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

nice post and research RJ. Its also interesting that its a knife wound to the neck, but a non fatal non mutilating attack, which with the later ripper murders would fit well with what we know about serial killers and escalation as the attacks continue.

[Lewis C]

good point lewis.

Dennis Rader even targeted a victim that lived on his street, blocks away.
And Imho the ripper was probably local and knew the immediate area intimately, I dont think he could have pulled off tje double event without that knowledge, although I dont rule out an "outsider" like Druitt.

Thanks Abby, and that's about where I am. I think he probably knew the area very well and most likely lived at least on the outskirts of Whitechapel/Spitalfields/eastern London, but I'm also open to the possibility that he lived as far away as Druitt did.

[mklhawley]

I asked Jonathan and Christine for any comments they wanted to make about R. J. Palmer's points - see below:


My mistake Roger; I was mis-remembering the proximity of this sex worker's attack to Druitt's kill-zone rather than his primary place of work. Your correction of course makes it more likely to be Druitt, not less.

But I stand by Druitt either being arrested and questioned over this incident, or during late 1888 a detective found this victim again and asked for the name of the barrister.

This is because somehow Montague Druitt's name came to police attention and onto a list of possible Jacks yet was considered a relatively low-grade prospect.

This would then make sense of Macnaghten's cryptic revelation in his 1914 memoirs that some of Druitt's particulars - e.g. of an incriminating nature - came to Scotland Yard's attention in 1888, but the definitive (and posthumous) evidence only did so "some years after" (e.g. starting with but not limited to Dorset Tory MP, Henry Farquharson's London leak in 1891).

Since Macnaghten was not a conceited egotist like Anderson his public comments in 1913 - repeated several times - that had he been on the Force in 1888 (as he should have been, no thanks to Warren whom he mercilessly skewers in the same memoir as a dangerous thug) he would have caught "Jack the Ripper" are bizarre.

Why? What possible difference would it have made his being there in 1888?

It does make sense, however, if the name of one of Dr Robert Druitt's nephews was on a suspect list Mac pored over in 1889.

In 1914, Macnaghten regretted making this public comment and tried to claim in his memoir's very brief intro that he had never said such a thing; it was supposedly made up by a lying reporter (despite the brevity of this intro Mac mentions "Jack the Ripper", and juxtaposes the killer with cricket).

Christine discovered that in Feb 1887, Druitt had unsuccessfully defended a child-murderer in Poole who was hanged (the man had confessed so no surprise). In court Druitt had mounted a blistering defense; he had tried to shift the blame onto his client's wife who was a part-time sex worker (the child victim in question was the issue of such a professional liaison) and the mother of the murdered child. So ferocious was Druitt's public attack on her character as a "fallen women" that even though her husband was convicted, she had to leave town for her own safety.

Then there is the failed attack on a woman so similar to the cowardly attack on the sex worker near Druitt's chambers: Ada Wilson

This is the summary of that non-fatal crime on this site derived from a range of newspaper accounts. As with the victim at first claiming it was a "barrister", Wilson too - understandably - is trying to evade admitting she is a sex worker surprised by a monstrous client.

"On March 28, 1888, while home alone at 19 Maidman Street, Wilson answered a knock at the door to find a man of about 30 years of age, 5ft 6ins in height, with a sunburnt face and a fair moustache. He was wearing a dark coat, light trousers and a wideawake hat. The man forced his way into the room and demanded money, and when she refused he stabbed her twice in the throat and ran, leaving her for dead. It is reported that nearby neighbours almost captured the man, but he found his escape."

This description, like Lawende's, matches Druitt - at least generically - with the suggestive detail of the reddened face, e.g. presumably due to his regular sporting activities.

[caz]

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.

Entirely agree, Herlock. Makes a nice change.

Much like a cat always finding its way home after catching a mouse, a man determined to hunt his chosen prey only needs to be able to retrace his steps to get back to his starting point and then safety - easy enough if he first encountered his victim on a main road and 'business' was conducted nearby.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Entirely agree, Herlock. Makes a nice change.

Love,

Caz
X

Just like old times Caz

[jmenges]

good point lewis.

Dennis Rader even targeted a victim that lived on his street, blocks away.
And Imho the ripper was probably local and knew the immediate area intimately, I dont think he could have pulled off tje double event without that knowledge, although I dont rule out an "outsider" like Druitt.

Not even blocks. BTK’s victim lived just 3 houses away on the same side of the street. I’ve been there and he could have thrown a frisbee into her front yard.
Another one is Lonnie Franklin, who littered his very own South Los Angeles neighborhood with bodies for over two decades before being captured. Just dumped them in the streets and alleyways with the trash.

JM

[Fiver]

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.

Lets compare this to the actual accounts of the stabbing of Minnie Cameron.

* No one was arrested for the attack, so the first sentence is provably false.

* Cameron was struck over the head from behind, then stabbed in the neck. This might be an early attempt by the Ripper, but it does vary significantly from the Ripper's signature.

* Initial speculation was that Cameron had been attacked "in some house of ill repute". Investigation showed "she had not been to any house in Valentine-place" and following the blood trail showed she had been attacked outdoors near the second parapet on the left on the Blackfriars-bridge.

* When found near a grocer's shop, Cameron said she had been attacked by policeman. A witness said she was "delirious", which is hardly surprising considering she had a head injury and severe blood loss.

* At Guy's hospital, Cameron claimed that she had been attacked at 1pm on Ludgate-hill by a barrister who was a friend of hers. The police considered the time impossible, believing she would have bled to death if the throat wound had been untreated for 6 hours. Following the blood trail showed the attack took place on Blackfriars-bridge, not Ludgate-hill.

* Cameron gave "several different versions of the affair" and police believed she "does not wish to give sufficient information to lead to an arrest". We have no way of determining if Cameron was deliberately shielding someone. We don't know who Cameron may have accused in the other versions of her story.

* Cameron never made an accusation against Montague Druitt or any other individual - she could not have dropped an accusation that she never made. Her interview spent two sentences denying she was attacked by a barrister and five sentences denying she was attacked by a policeman, which implies that she was much more concerned about denying the claim she had been attacked by the policeman.

[rjpalmer]

This might be an early attempt by the Ripper, but it does vary significantly from the Ripper's signature.

"Signature" is pseudo-science.

[Fiver]

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.

The attack on Minnie Cameron might have been a Ripper attack. But she accused a policeman before she accused a barrister and may have accused others.

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.

Cameron did not name the policeman or the barrister, so why would Druitt's name come up in the investigation of the Cameron attack?

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.

We don't know if Cameron picked up a client. The two known versions of the several versions that she gave police had her attacked while walking home. The police theory was that she was attacked "inside some house of ill-repute", not while picking up a client in the streets.

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.

Why do you keep dropping the word policeman from what I said? When found, Cameron claimed to have been attacked by a policeman. Cameron later denied this claim. At the hospital, Cameron claimed to have been attacked by a barrister. Cameron later denied this claim.

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

Cameron told multiple contradictory versions of who her attacker was. The ones we know are accusations against a barrister and a policeman. At least one of the two had to be false. Cameron later denied both. When Cameron made her accusations, she had suffered a head injury and severe blood loss, and was described by a witness as "delirious".

It is possible that the police pressured Cameron into denying that her attacker was a policeman. She certainly seemed a lot more concerned about denying that version than the version where she was attacked by a barrister. She might also have been pressured or bribed into denying that her attacker was a barrister. Or she could have wanted to correct her random ravings while she was delirious. There is no way of knowing.

[rjpalmer]

Cameron told multiple contradictory versions of who her attacker was. The ones we know are accusations against a barrister and a policeman. At least one of the two had to be false. Cameron later denied both.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to regale me with the facts of a case that I'm very familiar with and have known about for years.

Yes, she accused a policeman, but that allegation was instantly debunked---a policeman's nightstick could not have caused the wound to her throat.

Far more curious is her allegation that she had been attacked by a barrister and a friend. That is strangely specific and barristers aren't known for going around cutting women's throats in the night so it would make for a very unusual lie. And it is not usually normal for street prostitutes to know the occupation of their clients unless they are a 'regular.' I take 'friend' to mean the same as a 'date' or a 'client' in the modern jargon of streetwalkers.

If you think it is a worthless coincidence that a streetwalker who had her throat cut in 1887 alluded to a barrister (and the north end of Blackfriar's bridge would place her not overly far from the Inns of Court and Kings Bench Walk) that's certainly your prerogative. I find it rather interesting, even though Druitt is not one of my two preferred suspects. I would feel remiss if I simply shooed it away as quickly as possible when it could, in fact, be valuable. I'd feel the same way if she had accused an unnamed Pickford's carman or a Polish hairdresser particularly if the attack took place not overly far from their stomping grounds.

She might also have been pressured or bribed into denying that her attacker was a barrister. Or she could have wanted to correct her random ravings while she was delirious. There is no way of knowing.

Or she might have thought better of giving the name of her attacker to the police. That's hardly an unusual reaction from a victim of violent crime. As you say, there is no way of knowing, so I'm puzzled why you seem much more eager to throw doubts in your path than possibilities. We are dealing with an unsolved case, are we not?

[Observer]

Yes, she accused a policeman, but that allegation was instantly debunked---a policeman's nightstick could not have caused the wound to her throat.

This is true, plus there's no mention of a head wound as reported.

It looks to me that the assault took place on Blackfriars Bridge, could it have been a suicide attempt? Unlikely I know, even far fetched, but perhaps she intended to jump over the bridge, and then having decided that drowning was not a good idea she (having a knife on her person) cut her throat, then thrown the knife into the Thames. As I said highly unlikely, but suicide was greatly stigmatised during that period, it might explain the various stories she told to the authorities.