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

[Debra Arif]

TP also had the Weekly Sun, but that was 1891 so can't be related either, I did just read that TP was impressed by a piece of louis Tracy's writing in the Weekly Sun and so made him assistant editor of the Sun.

[Howard Brown]

Rob, Debs, all

Do these two resemble each other ?

The one on the left is Louis Tracy ( I've set up a new thread in The Reporters section)...and Rob has mentioned that the one on the right is said to be Tracy as well.

[Howard Brown]

The reason I ask is its rare when a man changes the side he parts his hair on...its one of those habits we often don't change....

[Debra Arif]

The reason I ask is its rare when a man changes the side he parts his hair on...its one of those habits we often don't change....

These two look very different to me too, How, but there is probably a big time gap between the pics? So, I'm not sure as the nose seems definitely the same. The younger, thinner Tracy's picture looks very strange though. That's why originally, like Chris, I wondered if it was a picture of Thomas Cutbush!

[Robert Linford]

Could there have been a reversal in one of the photos?

[Howard Brown]

Thanks Debs & Bob !
You may be right Bob...
Debs...the one from Mr. Bullock's bookcover is a little strange, at that.

[Robert Linford]

This pic, presumably of Tracy, looks a bit similar to the young version above :

[Rob Clack]

I wonder if Bullock used that painting to get people to think it is a picture of Cutbush? There's a b/w version in the book and it's not even captioned. The only mention of it is in the acknowledgements at the back where he says it came from John D Squires. It does seem a bit of overkill using that drawing as it is reproduced three times. On the cover, as a frontispiece and on the back cover.

Rob

[Robert Linford]

It would be great IF David Bullock has indeed put his hands on an image of Cutbush. Certainly if I were browsing in a bookshop, I'd expect the face on the cover to be either "The Man Who Would Be Jack," or David Bullock.

[Debra Arif]

I wonder if Bullock used that painting to get people to think it is a picture of Cutbush? There's a b/w version in the book and it's not even captioned. The only mention of it is in the acknowledgements at the back where he says it came from John D Squires. It does seem a bit of overkill using that drawing as it is reproduced three times. On the cover, as a frontispiece and on the back cover.

Rob

Yes, I thought that too, Rob. The first page shows just that picture, preceded by the quote from Cutbush 'I have only been cutting up girls and laying them out.'

[Debra Arif]

The Kindle version is now out and I've got a copy. The book definitely reads like fiction.
David Bullock does seem to be pushing the idea that there was an uncle and nephew relationship between Supt. Charles Henry and Thomas but yet in another chapter he mentions that he has researched the Cutbush family tree in great detail, so he must know that there is definitely no documented blood relationship at all.

[Rob Clack]

Yes, I thought that too, Rob. The first page shows just that picture, preceded by the quote from Cutbush 'I have only been cutting up girls and laying them out.'

A bit naughty that.

Rob

[Debra Arif]

Rob, I think the picture may actually be a modern painting of Cutbush done from descriptions of him, and not Louis Tracy. In the acknowledgments is this :

"I must say a big thank you to Steven and Louise Bullock for all their help and for bringing Thomas Cutbush to life in creating the fantastic portrait."

Maybe he didn't use the picture of Louis Tracy in the end but forgot to remove the reference from the acknowledgments? This must be why the portrait looks so strange as I mentioned to How, as Cutbush was supposedly 'singular' looking with large eyes.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Debs,

I have to say didn't notice that.
It should have been labeled a bit clearer on the frontispiece page.

Rob

[Debra Arif]

It should have been labeled a bit clearer on the frontispiece page.

Rob

Hi Rob.
Absolutely.

I noticed in the book that the supposed relationship between Charles Henry and Thomas Cutbush, as uncle and nephew, seems to be part of oral family history in the family of Charles Henry Cutbush (his great grandaughter is mentioned as as source for this). Whereas the majority of the Cutbushes related to Thomas's line that I have ever been in touch ( I think Robert has had the same experience but not certain) with have never heard this story and always made a point of asking how the two were related as their own researches didn't bear out the relationship.