Announcement

**Rob Clack** · August 20, 2012, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

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.

Just re-read that bit and I see what you mean. However can we be certain he published the drawing of Cutbush or Tracy, since it is not captioned?

Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

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.

I suppose the info came from Claire Chevin? It would have been nice to give the details of the relationship and not expect the reader to take his word for it.

Rob

**Debra Arif** · August 20, 2012, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post

Just re-read that bit and I see what you mean. However can we be certain he published the drawing of Cutbush or Tracy, since it is not captioned?

We can't, no, but instinct and the strangeness of the eyes and general 'odd' feel in that cover picture makes me think its the portrait of Cutbush done by the couple in the acknowledgments. I think it's a photoshop portrait too, rather than a painting, maybe even a manipulation of an existing old photograph of someone else?

I suppose the info came from Claire Chevin? It would have been nice to give the details of the relationship and not expect the reader to take his word for it.

Rob

Yes, she is named as the source in the chapter discussing the oral family history of Charles Henry's suicide and the acknowledgments.
I suspect they cannot give details of the relationship as it does not exist, not in the form of uncle and nephew anyway. I feel if they had that information it would definitely have been included, especially as Bullock discusses his research into the family history when discussing why Cutbush may have used the alias 'Taylor'...a family name.

**Debra Arif** · August 20, 2012, 04:03 PM

On a positive note, I am finding this book very easy to read!

**Robert Linford** · August 20, 2012, 04:08 PM

Hi Debs

Yes, one or two reviewers have said that it goes along at a good pace - rather like THC!

Why does he think that THC may have used the name "Taylor"?

**Debra Arif** · August 20, 2012, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post

Hi Debs

Yes, one or two reviewers have said that it goes along at a good pace - rather like THC!

Why does he think that THC may have used the name "Taylor"?

Hi Robert,
The mention of Taylor involves a a magazine article written by someone named Blunt ( I forget the year, possibly the 1930s?) which says that the Ripper was caged in Broadmoor asylum and used the alias 'Taylor.' Bullock links the description of 'Taylor' and the fact that Taylor was the middle name of THC's father to claim Taylor was THC.
This is one of the interesting things in the book that I haven't seen mentioned or discussed before,along with the claim that Louis Tracy and Kennedy Jones wrote the Sun articles on Cutbush.

I would class it as a semi-fictional treatment of Cutbush's story but I am enjoying it!

Edit: It was an article in John Blunt's monthly 1929

**Debra Arif** · August 20, 2012, 05:24 PM

Rob just sent me a link to casebook discussion of the John Blunt Monthly article:

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards: John Blunt's Monthly - December 1929

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/9940.html

**Robert Linford** · August 20, 2012, 05:31 PM

Thanks for that, Debs.

**Debra Arif** · August 20, 2012, 05:33 PM

Another naughty by David; He forgets to mention in the book that the article says that 'Taylor' the Ripper was in Broadmoor for 30 years.

**Robert Linford** · August 20, 2012, 06:12 PM

That does kind of exclude Thomas. So Mr Bullock isn't the Messiah....he's a very naughty boy.

**Debra Arif** · August 21, 2012, 07:31 AM

Nice one, Robert.

I noticed in one of the reviews it says this:
"It is a book which belongs in the 'historical' rather than the 'fiction' shelf "

Is the book being marketed as fiction?