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

[Mike Covell]

This week saw the delivery of The Man Who Would Be Jack: The Hunt For Jack The Ripper by David Bullock and covering the life, crimes and times of Thomas Cutbush.

Have any of the forums members had time to read it?

The first thing I noticed is the lack of bibliography, sources, references, and index.

[Belinda]

I've ordered it. Does it have anything new on Cutbush?

[Wicker Man]

This week saw the delivery of The Man Who Would Be Jack: The Hunt For Jack The Ripper by David Bullock and covering the life, crimes and times of Thomas Cutbush.

Have any of the forums members had time to read it?

The first thing I noticed is the lack of bibliography, sources, references, and index.

Then this book, if not fiction, is incomplete.

Jon S.

[Rob Clack]

Its the most god awful Ripper book I've ever read. Avoid like the plague.

Rob

[Debra Arif]

Its the most god awful Ripper book I've ever read. Avoid like the plague.

Rob

LOL. Thanks, Rob.
I was going to say you've saved me some cash but I may have to buy it now just to see how bad it really is.

[Chris Scott]

I looked this up on Amazon - does anyone know the source of what I assume is a photo of Cutbush on the cover? I have not seen this before.
Chris

[Rob Clack]

I looked this up on Amazon - does anyone know the source of what I assume is a photo of Cutbush on the cover? I have not seen this before.
Chris

Hi Chris,

Its suppose to be a painting of Louis Tracy who is suppose to have co authored The Sun articles in 1894

Rob

[Chris Scott]

Hi Chris,

Its suppose to be a painting of Louis Tracy who is suppose to have co authored The Sun articles in 1894

Rob

Many thanks Rob

[Mike Covell]

It's written by a soap star.

[Howard Brown]

Rob:

Is there a specific reason or reasons why you wouldn't recommend it ?
Thank you.

[Mike Covell]

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.

[Stephen Thomas]

Its the most god awful Ripper book I've ever read. Avoid like the plague.

Everything is beautiful in its own way, Rob.

[Robert Linford]

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.

[Rob Clack]

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

[Howard Brown]

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