Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Cutbush Book : The Man Who Would Be Jack: The Hunt For Jack The Ripper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Hi Rob,
    It's this version of the Sun it was in; with archives available for 89 and 90 so far. Is it different to the one which made the accusations about Thomas?

    sun 1889.JPG

    Yes, perhaps it was Race who started the rumours of a Cutbush relationship. Macnaghten may only have repeated the information without properly investigating the claim if the information was not meant for public consumption.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    That's really interesting. Thanks, Rob.
    So those particular conclusions are supposedly those of Kennedy Jones and Louis Tracy and not Davis Bullock then? The pair certainly were associated with The Sun newspaper in 1894. It is a real pity there are no references or sources to further research though.
    I do wonder if the uncle and nephew claims were something originally rumoured by those involved with writing the Sun story on Cutbush in 1894. I remember reading an 1890 Sun article recently that seemed to be implying that Superintendent Cutbush's role in organising the Met. police superannuation fund was a bit suspect, or something was a bit untoward about him having sole responsibilty for investing the funds...something like that, I think. Maybe they wanted more dirt on him so had him related to 'Jack the Ripper'.
    Hi Debs,

    I haven't come across a reference that Tracy and Kennedy wrote the articles. Doesn't mean there isn't one but it would be nice to have sources that are check able.
    I think The Sun started in 1893? but yeah it would have been a better story in having Jack the Ripper connected to the Police? I wonder if there was a connection between Inspector Race and Superintendent Cutbush?

    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Rob:
    I think quite a few folks would agree that a book devoted to the Cutbush affair ( an updated one, that is ) would be a good idea.
    Me to, it's been long overdue.

    Rob

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Rob:
    I think quite a few folks would agree that a book devoted to the Cutbush affair ( an updated one, that is ) would be a good idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    That's really interesting. Thanks, Rob.
    So those particular conclusions are supposedly those of Kennedy Jones and Louis Tracy and not Davis Bullock then? The pair certainly were associated with The Sun newspaper in 1894. It is a real pity there are no references or sources to further research though.
    I do wonder if the uncle and nephew claims were something originally rumoured by those involved with writing the Sun story on Cutbush in 1894. I remember reading an 1890 Sun article recently that seemed to be implying that Superintendent Cutbush's role in organising the Met. police superannuation fund was a bit suspect, or something was a bit untoward about him having sole responsibilty for investing the funds...something like that, I think. Maybe they wanted more dirt on him so had him related to 'Jack the Ripper'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Thanks for the summary, Rob. When we last talked about it you said you'd got the part where David was describing the TC initials tattooed on Eddowes' arm...you never did tell me what the conclusion of that section was...did the author try to suggest the intials were Cutbush's and not Conway's?!
    Hi Debs,

    Basically, 'The Sun' articles from 1894 were alleged to have been written by Louis Tracy and Kennedy Jones, don't know if that is true or not.
    When they discovered there was a tattoo on Catherine Eddowes 'TC'. Louis Tracy thought it may have referred to Thomas Conway while Kennedy Jones believed it may have referred to Thomas Cutbush, his reasoning was that Catherine claimed to know the identity of Jack the Ripper and came back from Hop picking to claim the reward.
    The attack on Eddowes face was more personal as if she knew her attacker.
    There was an alleged Kennington connection between the two as Catherine's daughter Annie Phillips worked in the neighbourhood of Kennington.
    Thoas Cutbush believed he had caught syphilis of a prostitute and what if that prostitute was Catherine Eddowes?

    All good solid stuff, doesn't explain why Catherine Eddowes would have Thomas Cutbush's initials tatooed on her.

    Rob

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    I would love to see AP and Robert update 'Jack the Myth' together, myself.


    Thanks for the summary, Rob. When we last talked about it you said you'd got the part where David was describing the TC initials tattooed on Eddowes' arm...you never did tell me what the conclusion of that section was...did the author try to suggest the intials were Cutbush's and not Conway's?!

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Thanks very much for the elaboration, Rob.....yet another example of a modern suspect-theory book which gets one of these
    It's a shame Howard because Cutbush really needs a good book written about him.

    Rob

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    Originally posted by Stephen Thomas View Post
    Thanks for that long explanatory post, Rob. I'd thought that this book would be based on the extremely fine research by Robert Linford, Debra Arif, AP Wolf and others, discussed mainly on Casebook some years ago but apparently not.
    Didn't think I would ever do a post as long as one of Jonathans I was knackered after it.

    Yes I spoke to Debs and think she would be one of the best people for the job.

    Rob

    Leave a comment:


  • Stephen Thomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
    I suppose the best way to describe the book is it is not much different from Donald McCormicks book. Which is a bad thing to say about any Ripper book, especially one written in this day and age.
    Thanks for that long explanatory post, Rob. I'd thought that this book would be based on the extremely fine research by Robert Linford, Debra Arif, AP Wolf and others, discussed mainly on Casebook some years ago but apparently not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Maybe folks will question him here :

    http://www.whitechapelsociety.com/co...ers&Itemid=111

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks very much for the elaboration, Rob.....yet another example of a modern suspect-theory book which gets one of these

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Rob:

    Is there a specific reason or reasons why you wouldn't recommend it ?
    Thank you.
    There's a lot of reasons Howard.
    As Mike said. No notes, no sources, no index, so unless somebody knows the source of the information given it is hard to judge some of the comments made. There is a list of authors who's work is used which helps to narrow down some of the sources he used. Unfortunately some of these are very unreliable and should never be used to push a theory.

    Some examples:

    Cutbush is supposedly seen in Buck's Row by a 'H Division' police constable half hour before Mary Ann Nichols (incorrectly spelt Mary Anne Nichols in the book) is discovered. Most of us should be aware that a 'H Division' constable would not be patrolling Buck's Row, but what is worrying is the source for this information is from Edwin Woodhall's book 'Jack the Ripper or When London walked in Terror', which is not the most reliable of books.

    Newspaper sources are given as fact on a few occasions. Again with Nichols, the author claims a stall holder, John Morgan, sold Nichols a mug of tea in the Cambridge Heath Road at 3:30. Again, no source is given. It may have been The Echo, 1 September:

    WHO IS JIM?
    There is another point of some importance upon which the police rely. It is the statement of John Morgan, a coffee-stall keeper, who says that a woman, whose description answers to that given to him of the victim, called at his stall-three minutes' walk from Buck's-row-early yesterday morning. She was accompanied by a man whom she addressed as Jim. They appeared as if they had had a quarrel. The woman did all she could to pacify him. This morning our reporter had an interview with Mr. John Morgan, at the house where he lodges, 62, Oxford-street, near Bethnal-green-road. He said: It was half-past three or a quarter to four o'clock yesterday morning, when a woman, whom I knew was an immoral character, came to my stall and a man was with her. I am to-day to go to the mortuary before the inquest and see if I can identify her as the one who came there. Well, she was with a man, like a labourer, between 5ft. 4in. and 5ft. 6in. in height, with dark hair and short beard. He and the woman had words. Having had a cup of tea the woman said, "Come on, Jim, let's get home." Then they went away, and I did not think anything more of the occurrence until I heard of this dreadful affair at Buck's-row, near where it was. My stall is at the corner of Cambridge Heath-road. I have seen the woman several times, and could therefore identify her if she is the one I fancy it is. I did not hear any screams-at least, nothing to speak of.

    It is highly unlikely that this was Mary Ann Nichols since there is no mention of John Morgan in the Official Files or appearing at the Inquest, yet it is given as fact that it was Mary Ann Nichols.

    The author claims Alice McKenzie was a Jack the Ripper victim and that Sergeant Stephen White saw Cutbush leaving Castle Alley, obviously a reference to The Peoples Journal article. Again an unreliable source.

    Several descriptions of suspects are given throughout the book, some quite different from each other but they all apparently looked like Cutbush, some are given within a few paragraphs of each other. From page 111 "A night duty constable had observed a young man, whom he described as tall, with a dark complexion and a black moustache, who appeared to be wearing a cap, hurrying towards the area of Mitre Square....This account was evidently compatible with the appearance of Thomas Cutbush." Never heard of this and don't know the source, but anyway a couple of paragraphs later a description is given of the man whom the police believed were responsible for the Mitre Square. "He was aged 28 years old, he was of slight build, with his height given as 5ft 8in., and had a dark complexion, he was described as having no whiskers.." Obviously two different people and then in the next paragraph is a description of Cutbush in 1891 "Age 25" 22 in 1888, "build slight, height 5ft 9 1/2 in, complexion dark, very short whiskers" again a different person from the other two descriptions.

    Probably the most important error is that David Bullock said Thomas Cutbush and Superintendent Charles Cutbush was related, where the the latest research suggest they were not.
    The book is written as if it is a mystery novel and some of the writing is a bit sloppy for example when Louis Tracy is interviewing a Cutbush relative he is said to be 'refraining from taking notes' and two pages later during the same interview he said "As Tracy placed the small notebook upon his knee".
    A lot of words are put in the characters mouths and descriptions of places which as far as we know are made up.

    I suppose the best way to describe the book is it is not much different from Donald McCormicks book. Which is a bad thing to say about any Ripper book, especially one written in this day and age.

    Rob

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Stephen - I said, "They refused Jesus too."
    He said, "You're not him!"
    (Bob Dylan)

    I'm wondering now what it is that's so bad. I might buy it to have a look.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stephen Thomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
    Its the most god awful Ripper book I've ever read. Avoid like the plague.
    Everything is beautiful in its own way, Rob.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Covell
    replied
    I will be the first to admit I don't know the first thing about Cutbush, although I did read AP's book Jack the Myth many many moons ago. Seeing a new book on Cutbush I decided to invest, as I am aware of the discoveries made in recent years between this new book and AP's book, but the problem I had was that because nothing is referenced in this new book it was difficult to ascertain what was known fact, and what was writers opinion or supposition.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X