A new front in the history wars? A new article on 'the five'

[Observer]

Just to add, as I said earlier is there a lot of stick metered out to "Ripperologists" ? You get the odd Rubenhold coming along now and again., courting controversy to earn a few bob. On the whole I believe the vast majority of people who have an interest in the subject accept, (regardless of depth of knowledge) that it is nothing more than a series of murders committed against a group of women who were indeed prostitutes. The evidence is there. Who cares what Rubenhold says? It's pointless over reacting with regard to her theories.

[MrBarnett]

Why do you ask?

Because those who do often find themselves making contact with members of the public who may have useful information to share. It’s always been a bit awkward having to explain the JTR nature of such enquiries. The sort of publicity that HR has courted portrays Ripperology in an unfavourable light to a wide audience.

[MrBarnett]

Also, do I spend much time in doing original research in what respect?

In respect of the subject we are discussing.

[Observer]

And what could we possibly do about it that would receive 1/100th of the attention Hallie Rubenhold gets when she’s tweeting about her new designer shoes?

JM

I'll come clean Mr Menges. If My living depended on researching and producing books, and magazines on the subject of Jack the Ripper, and it adversely affected the sale of said publications, then I might be a bit peeved with Ms Rubenhold's input. The thing is the number of individuals who fit into that category is infinitely small. I do hope you realise though that as far as Rubenhold, and her ilk are concerned I couldn't care a fig what she says on the subject. Also, as far as we lesser mortals are concerned, I can't see what all the fuss is with Rubenhold's flawed reasoning when it comes to the subject of the Whitechapel murders. Ignore her.

[Observer]

Because those who do often find themselves making contact with members of the public who may have useful information to share. It’s always been a bit awkward having to explain the JTR nature of such enquiries. The sort of publicity that HR has courted portrays Ripperology in an unfavourable light to a wide audience.

A wide audience? Are you sure?

Do you really believe that the members of the public who may have useful information have actually heard of Rubenhold? Even if they had read what Runenhold has to say on the subject, do you believe it would have such an adverse effect on them that it would result in them not revealing said information? I somehow doubt it. I'd also question whether anyone alive today had any information which would lead to the unmasking of the Whitechapel murderer. By the way, what merits the title "original research"?

[MrBarnett]

A wide audience? Are you sure?

Do you really believe that the members of the public who may have useful information have actually heard of Rubenhold? Even if they had read what Runenhold has to say on the subject, do you believe it would have such an adverse effect on them that it would result in them not revealing said information? I somehow doubt it. I'd also question whether anyone alive today had any information which would lead to the unmasking of the Whitechapel murderer. By the way, what merits the title "original research"?

Yes, I’m sure. Her attack on Ripperology has been repeatedly parroted in the national press and other mainstream media across the globe.

We’ll have to agree to differ about the rest.

[Observer]

Yes, I’m sure. Her attack on Ripperology has been repeatedly parroted in the national press and other mainstream media across the globe.

We’ll have to agree to differ about the rest.

I think we'll also have to differ with regard to the extent her thoughts on the crimes have had on the World in general.

[MrBarnett]

I think we'll also have to differ with regard to the extent her thoughts on the crimes have had on the World in general.

I haven’t expressed an opinion on that on this thread so far, but don’t let that stop you disagreeing with me.

[Observer]

I haven’t expressed an opinion on that on this thread so far, but don’t let that stop you disagreeing with me.

I did actually mean that I disagree that Rubehold's theories have extensively spread around the World. Or that large numbers of people are aware of her theories. Even those who have read her theories, to most I believe, it will have been in one ear and out the other. Believe it or not, the Whitechapel series of murders doesn't rank very high on most peoples list of interesting subjects.

[jmenges]

It’s her “war” with Ripperologists that the public finds interesting. That’s why she used the controversy (that she largely manufactured) to sell her book. Her Twitter feed is full of people who brag about buying ‘The Five’ solely as a show of support. Id suggest what she proposes in her book isn’t what those people are interested in, they look at the book as a membership badge.

JM

[MrBarnett]

I did actually mean that I disagree that Rubehold's theories have extensively spread around the World. Or that large numbers of people are aware of her theories. Even those who have read her theories, to most I believe, it will have been in one ear and out the other. Believe it or not, the Whitechapel series of murders doesn't rank very high on most peoples list of interesting subjects.

But we are discussing her misrepresentation of Ripperologists, not her theories about the murders.

I recently communicated with the descendant of an individual who attended one of the WM crime scenes. This person provided me with a photo of the individual in question and one of a possession of his, dated 1888, that has what appears to be bloodstains on it.

In this case, the descendant initiated contact through JTForums. When contact is made in the other direction there’s always the danger that the person you are contacting will clam up as soon as you mention JTR. The public perception of Ripperologists is something that concerns me and many others in the field. If it doesn’t concern you, then bully for you old chap.

[MrBarnett]

My last post crossed with Jon’s.

[MrBarnett]

It’s her “war” with Ripperologists that the public finds interesting. That’s why she used the controversy (that she largely manufactured) to sell her book. Her Twitter feed is full of people who brag about buying ‘The Five’ solely as a show of support. Id suggest what she proposes in her book isn’t what those people are interested in, they look at the book as a membership badge.

JM

Yes, she presents it as a choice between misogyny and feminism.

The irony is that she is denying the extent to which these women suffered from the misogyny of the time in order to make money. Very few Ripperologists have made any money at all out of their interest in the victims.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we are discussing her misrepresentation of Ripperologists, not her theories about the murders.

I recently communicated with the descendant of an individual who attended one of the WM crime scenes. This person provided me with a photo of the individual in question and one of a possession of his, dated 1888, that has what appears to be bloodstains on it.

In this case, the descendant initiated contact through JTForums. When contact is made in the other direction there’s always the danger that the person you are contacting will clam up as soon as you mention JTR. The public perception of Ripperologists is something that concerns me and many others in the field. If it doesn’t concern you, then bully for you old chap.

I have to ask Gary. Have you revealed the photo and possession yet?

[Observer]

Deleted by mistake. My apologies.