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
    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?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Thanks for that, Debs.

    Leave a comment:


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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    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"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    On a positive note, I am finding this book very easy to read!

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    Hi Debs,

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

    Rob

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X