Assessing Cutbush

[Fiver]

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

No one ever claimed that a policeman's truncheon caused the stab wound to Millie Cameron's neck. But she did say that "a policeman had struck her in the head with his truncheon and knocked her down". In a later interview, Cameron backed off on the claim that a policeman had done so, but continued to insist she had been stuck in the head.

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.

Cameron was stabbed in the throat. That's not the same thing as having her throat cut. Policemen aren't known for going around cutting women's throats in the night, either. Neither are roadmen, like James Brown. Or barbers, like George Capel Scudamore Lechmere.

'Friend' might mean 'client', but even streetwalkers have actual friends. And are we sure that Cameron was a streetwalker?

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?

The doubts are possibilities.

Possibly Cameron's attacker was a barrister. Possibly Cameron's attacker was a policeman. Possibly her attacker was neither. Her story changed several times and the police don't appear to have believed any version of it.

Possibly Cameron knew her attacker. Possibly she didn't. Possibly she was struck from behind and never even saw him. The police don't appear to have cared enough to make much effort to get a name from her.

Possibly Cameron was an early, failed attempt by the Ripper. Possibly this was a completely unrelated attack. The attack bore some similarities and some notable differences.

Barrister Montague Druitt lived near where Cameron was attacked. If Cameron was telling the truth about being attacked by a barrister and knowing her attacker, that makes Druitt a more likely suspect, but still is not proof against him.

Police of the time might have been able to solve the crime if they put on more effort. We will never know.

[Fiver]

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.

That's an interesting possibility. We can't rule suicide out, but it seems unlikely.

[Pcdunn]

"Signature" is pseudo-science.

That statement needs clarification. What do you mean by "signature", exactly? If you mean the idea that one's personality can be determined by graphology, then that may well be a pseudo-science.

But as the FBI and law enforcement agencies have known for decades, document examinatuon is a valid way of comparing handwriting samples in the case of suspected forgeries. It relies on objective examination of the writing itself, not on a list of supposed personality traits found in how a letter is formed.

[The Rookie Detective]

No one ever claimed that a policeman's truncheon caused the stab wound to Millie Cameron's neck. But she did say that "a policeman had struck her in the head with his truncheon and knocked her down". In a later interview, Cameron backed off on the claim that a policeman had done so, but continued to insist she had been stuck in the head.



Cameron was stabbed in the throat. That's not the same thing as having her throat cut. Policemen aren't known for going around cutting women's throats in the night, either. Neither are roadmen, like James Brown. Or barbers, like George Capel Scudamore Lechmere.

'Friend' might mean 'client', but even streetwalkers have actual friends. And are we sure that Cameron was a streetwalker?



The doubts are possibilities.

Possibly Cameron's attacker was a barrister. Possibly Cameron's attacker was a policeman. Possibly her attacker was neither. Her story changed several times and the police don't appear to have believed any version of it.

Possibly Cameron knew her attacker. Possibly she didn't. Possibly she was struck from behind and never even saw him. The police don't appear to have cared enough to make much effort to get a name from her.

Possibly Cameron was an early, failed attempt by the Ripper. Possibly this was a completely unrelated attack. The attack bore some similarities and some notable differences.

Barrister Montague Druitt lived near where Cameron was attacked. If Cameron was telling the truth about being attacked by a barrister and knowing her attacker, that makes Druitt a more likely suspect, but still is not proof against him.

Police of the time might have been able to solve the crime if they put on more effort. We will never know.

Once again Fiver, an excellent post.

[rjpalmer]

That statement needs clarification. What do you mean by "signature", exactly? If you mean the idea that one's personality can be determined by graphology, then that may well be a pseudo-science.

But as the FBI and law enforcement agencies have known for decades, document examinatuon is a valid way of comparing handwriting samples in the case of suspected forgeries. It relies on objective examination of the writing itself, not on a list of supposed personality traits found in how a letter is formed.

Hello Pcdunn.

No, I was not referring to handwriting analysis. 'Fiver' claimed that the 'signature' of a specific murder was not the same as the alleged 'signature' of the Ripper murders, while allowing that there could possibly be a link.

The theory, often repeated on this forum, is that killers, in dispatching their victims, leave a unique and identifiable 'signature' at the crime scene. Not DNA evidence, nor fingerprints, nor anything similar, but their behavior itself---how the victim is mutilated or posed, and this allegedly can allow a 'profiler' or a psychologist to conclusively link similar crimes.

It has become a popular idea, promoted in detective shows on American television, etc.

The trouble is that this claim lacks empirical support. The alleged ability of psychologists or profilers to identify a 'signature' under test conditions has shown to be wanting. Different psychologists will identify different 'signatures' (science is when two independent researchers can come up with the same conclusion) and, worse yet, they've also misidentified unrelated crimes as having the same 'signature,' and have also wrongly dismissed crimes that were, in fact, committed by the same person as later proved through DNA and other evidence.

Hence, I call it pseudoscience. Here's one study; there are others. This is just the abstract; you'll have to go to a research library if you want to read the full paper.

[rjpalmer]

In a later interview, Cameron backed off on the claim that a policeman had done so, but continued to insist she had been stuck in the head.

Can you cite your source for this belief?

I recall her insisting that she was 'struck from behind.' You're assuming that she meant struck on the head; I took it to mean that she was struck from behind with a knife to the throat.

The reason she was insisting it was 'from behind' is that she was now denying that she knew her attacker and wanted to leave the impression she had not even seen his face. I don't particularly believe her.

And there is evidence in the Tabram case that Martha had been struck on the head, so even if true, which I am by no means certain, this in itself nothing that would distinguish it from a possible 'Ripper' murder, and as I say, the idea that multicides are repeating the same exact actions robot-like is a misguided one.

And are we sure that Cameron was a streetwalker?

I'm not sure who you mean by 'we,' but I'm sure she was. Her friends identified her as a prostitute, though it could have been the type associated with a brothel. She is said to have had beautiful blonde hair and, being in her twenties, she would have been able to secure a better class of clients than Tabram, Nichols, etc.

[Fiver]

Can you cite your source for this belief?

I recall her insisting that she was 'struck from behind.' You're assuming that she meant struck on the head; I took it to mean that she was struck from behind with a knife to the throat.

The reason she was insisting it was 'from behind' is that she was now denying that she knew her attacker and wanted to leave the impression she had not even seen his face. I don't particularly believe her.

The police don't appear to have believed any of the versions that Cameron told.

"She had got a little way across Blackfriars-bridge when all of a sudden she received a blow from behind. At least it was like a blow. It seemed to stun her, for she remembered but little of what took place afterwards." A blow would be some sort of blunt instrument, such as a club. That would help to account for Cameron being delirious when found.

And there is evidence in the Tabram case that Martha had been struck on the head, so even if true, which I am by no means certain, this in itself nothing that would distinguish it from a possible 'Ripper' murder, and as I say, the idea that multicides are repeating the same exact actions robot-like is a misguided one.

No one that I know has said that "multicides are repeating the same exact actions robot-like". I have pointed out that there are enough similarities to the accepted Ripper attacks that Cameron might have been an early attempt by the Ripper, but enough differences that it could be a different attacker.

I'm not sure who you mean by 'we,' but I'm sure she was. Her friends identified her as a prostitute, though it could have been the type associated with a brothel. She is said to have had beautiful blonde hair and, being in her twenties, she would have been able to secure a better class of clients than Tabram, Nichols, etc.

News accounts that I have found make it clear the police thought that Cameron was a prostitute. I haven't found any interviews with her friends, let alone them describing her age, appearance, or occupation.

[rjpalmer]

"At least it was like a blow."

What does the above statement from your source suggest to you, Fiver?

If she is lying in hospital, concussed with a scalp wound, why would she say, "at least it was like a blow"?

Why would there have been any doubt about the matter?

Wouldn't it have been abundantly obvious that it HAD BEEN a blow if she was knocked so hard across the scalp with a blunt object that she was left delirious? Wouldn't the evidence be her own head wound? Yet no such head wound is described.

What you might not appreciate is that it is utterly commonplace for people who are the victims of stab wounds to wrongly believe they had been punched or struck or had received a 'blow.'

This happened with one of the victims in the Colocitt/Cutbush 'jobbings.' She thought she had been punched or slapped from behind, and only later, when her dress became sopping wet, did she realize she had actually been stabbed.

I believe that is all that happened in the current case.

Here are some modern examples of the same thing:


Billings, MT 2016.




Warrington, UK, 2023




Clissold Park, Clapton, London, 2004




Poole, UK, 2008.




In our case, the evidence suggest that the victim was suddenly attacked (being a prostitute this was almost certainly a client) and he stabbed her in the neck from behind or the side. She thought it was 'like a blow.' There is not a jot of evidence that this was to her head, and no head wound was ever described. She staggered away, walking along the bridge in a state of confusion, not initially realizing she had been stabbed with a knife. With the loss of blood, she became fainter, and eventually she was no longer sure what had happened when she was narrowly rescued from dying.

Again, no head wound is described and this 'blow from behind' was simply the knife entering her neck. Her 'delirium' can be adequately explained by shock and loss of blood.

But I'm now going to suspend this conversation because I don't think it's going anywhere. More and more, I'm coming to the conclusion that these back-and-forth debates have more to do with dopamine rushing to the brain during social media interactions and less to do with any genuine attempt to get at the truth of what actually occurred.

I apologize that I feel that way.

RP

[rjpalmer]

Let me close with the mother of all examples of a stabbing victim not initially realizing that she had been stabbed, but instead wrongly assumed that she had been punched or had been struck by a stone.

In this case, Mrs. Shirley Petrich walked several miles oblivious to the knife jutting out of the back of her neck. She even went home and took a shower before her daughter noticed something was amiss.

[Pcdunn]

Hello Pcdunn.

No, I was not referring to handwriting analysis. 'Fiver' claimed that the 'signature' of a specific murder was not the same as the alleged 'signature' of the Ripper murders, while allowing that there could possibly be a link.

The theory, often repeated on this forum, is that killers, in dispatching their victims, leave a unique and identifiable 'signature' at the crime scene. Not DNA evidence, nor fingerprints, nor anything similar, but their behavior itself---how the victim is mutilated or posed, and this allegedly can allow a 'profiler' or a psychologist to conclusively link similar crimes.

It has become a popular idea, promoted in detective shows on American television, etc.

The trouble is that this claim lacks empirical support. The alleged ability of psychologists or profilers to identify a 'signature' under test conditions has shown to be wanting. Different psychologists will identify different 'signatures' (science is when two independent researchers can come up with the same conclusion) and, worse yet, they've also misidentified unrelated crimes as having the same 'signature,' and have also wrongly dismissed crimes that were, in fact, committed by the same person as later proved through DNA and other evidence.

Hence, I call it pseudoscience. Here's one study; there are others. This is just the abstract; you'll have to go to a research library if you want to read the full paper.

Ah, *criminial* signature! My mistake. Thank you for clarifying what you meant.