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

[Losmandris]

Here is a link to the above article by Paul Bleakley

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1748895821992460

Why is it that we 'amateur' enthusiasts come in for so much stick? It seems like academics and the like treat us with utter contempt sometimes and are happy to make all sorts of assumptions, despite the fact that there are people on here and in other places that know far more about this topic than anyone else? The mind boggles.

Not really sure why I have posted this (just annoyed I suppose) as I don't think it is particularly well written or actually answers the question he sets for himself all that well, if at all. But then what would i know?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here is a link to the above article by Paul Bleakley

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...48895821992460

Why is it that we 'amateur' enthusiasts come in for so much stick? It seems like academics and the like treat us with utter contempt sometimes and are happy to make all sorts of assumptions, despite the fact that there are people on here and in other places that know far more about this topic than anyone else? The mind boggles.

Not really sure why I have posted this (just annoyed I suppose) as I don't think it is particularly well written or actually answers the question he sets for himself all that well, if at all. But then what would i know?

I think that you’re right to be more than annoyed Tristan because this isn’t a history ‘war’ it’s a ‘massacre.’ And it’s an ongoing massacre because the field of ‘battle’ isn’t an open or an honest one. The voices of Rubenhold, Bleakley and many others are the only voices that are being heard by the general public. Ripperology lies silent which implies an embarrassed acceptance that we have been caught out engaging in the kind of bias that we are being accused of. Rubenhold et al speak to the world and we talk amongst ourselves on forums that the general public are unlikely ever to visit. Apparently (and I don’t use social media) Rubenhold has no truck with dissenting voices and sadly she has been ‘martyred’ by some unpleasant comments on these platforms which are now considered the true voices of ripperology. Some think that we shouldn’t respond and that this will go away but I think that it might be too late for that. Labels that can be attached in an instant can take a lifetime to remove; if they ever are.

It’s interesting that Bleakley uses ‘research’ when writing about ripperologists research. Apparently only a qualified Historian can be trusted to do real research? It’s a relentless drip of denigration which we are taking lying down. And what’s really annoying is that much of what is written is easily refutable. For example, is it a realistic proposition that on the 8th September the ripper walked along Hanbury Street trying doors until he finds one open. He then walks through a passageway on the off chance that the back door was unlocked and bingo! What an incredible stroke of luck...a sleeping woman. Really?

So yes, I think you’re right to be annoyed Tristan. We’ve been labelled and demonised by people with an agenda taking the dishonest approach that we are accused of employing. That’s the way it now is. We’ve waived the white flag.

You should post that on JTRForums btw Tristan.

[MrBarnett]

Compare her statement:

“Apart from a small booklet containing fifty-seven pages of text, nothing else on the subject existed...”

to her extensive bibliography, which contains works by numerous Casebook and JTRForums members.

That quote came from her Waterstones blog which I attempted to counter, but found that every other comment I made was censored by Waterstones.

[MrBarnett]

In 2008, Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim by Dave Yost was published. Hallie Rubenhold includes it in her bibliography.

I haven’t read it; I don’t know how good it is, but it’s 228 pages on the subject of Liz Stride which compares well with Hallie’s ‘magisterial’ 54 pages on the same subject.

This is just one example. Hundreds of thousands of words must have been written about the victims’ lives in books, articles and online posts before HR began to take an interest in them.

[Observer]

Here is a link to the above article by Paul Bleakley

Why is it that we 'amateur' enthusiasts come in for so much stick?

Is there that much "stick"? If so, so what? Does it annoy you? It doesn't annoy me, why should it. In my opinion, contributing to this type of forum is nothing more than a pastime.

The problem is that certain posters take themselves too seriously, particularly those with a suspect in mind. Some eat, sleep, and breath this forum. I'm surprised they get any time to do anything else.

I'm a casual member of three serial killer forums two JTR, and one Zodiac Killer, they are very similar in intensity.

Of course, the conspiracy theorists don't help, neither do the "what if", "perhaps", "surely not" merchants.

Don't get me wrong, I've taken part in heated argument, but as soon as I've signed out, that's it, I'm not up half the night thinking it over in my mind. I'm sure there are posters who display this type of behavior.

In short, my advice to any would be contributor to this type of forum is, don't take the subject too seriously, we're all hobbyists, it's not life or death, treat it as a pastime.

[MrBarnett]

Is there that much "stick"? If so, so what? Does it annoy you? It doesn't annoy me, why should it, In my opinion, contributing to this type of forum is nothing more than a pastime.

The problem is that certain posters take themselves too seriously, particularly those with a suspect in mind. Some eat, sleep, and breath this forum. I'm surprised they get any time to do anything else.

I'm a casual member of three serial killer forums two JTR, and one Zodiac Killer, they are very similar in intensity.

Of course, the conspiracy theorists don't help, neither do the "what if", "perhaps", "surely not" merchants.

Don't get me wrong, I've taken part in heated argument, but as soon as I've signed out, that's it, I'm not up half the night thinking it over in my mind. I'm sure there are posters who display this type of behavior.

In short, my advice to any would be contributor to this type of forum is, don't take the subject too seriously, we're all hobbyists, it's not life or death, treat it as a pastime.

Do you spend much time doing original research?

[Observer]

Do you spend much time doing original research?

Why do you ask?

[Observer]

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

[Meet Ze Monster]

Author Bruce Robinson has been very vocal about his detesting of 'Ripperologists'. The assumption a lot of these so-called experts hold is that us amateur sleuths are blindsided by every crackpot theory such as the Royal conspiracy or Maybrick's diary. They seem to think we sit at our computers trying to cram pet theories to fit established timelines and suspects. Robinson seems to hold the view that we follow slavishly anything stated by the authorities of the day, simply because they were in authority. I guess he holds that Victorian police were all corrupt and incompetent. In truth, most of the established Ripper authors and history experts offer very little. Here I can cross reference nearly anything I read or see about the case and find a plethora of great information from people who do it for the passion of it. I don't see any agendas, only researchers who seem intent on finding the best and most accurate information possible. A lot of the Ripperologists on here run rings around the haters!

[Kattrup]

at least Sam Flynn and RJ Palmer get mentioned, they must be stoked!

I found the article - hmm, a bit more nuanced than I'd expected. Still too reliant on a narrative-driven approach to history, and failing to see that criticism of HR relies not on the subject matter being unacceptable to old-school ripperologists, but on her details and contextual omissions being factually wrong. Not aided, of course, by her relentless criticism of anyone not accepting her as the saviour of poor neglected women when everything she knows about them has been dug up by ripperologists long before she came along.

[jmenges]

Ripperology will be here long after Hallie Rubenhold’s book has left the bargain bin. Although the full story of her dealings with Ripperologists hasn’t been told- the behind the scenes lies and manipulation she engaged in for months prior to the publication of The Five- the fact is Ripperology doesn’t have the bullhorn she has, the self-obsession she has or the financial interest she has to keep this circus going. It should be clear to all of us by now that neither she nor her “public” really give a damn about the Ripper’s victims, they’re drawn to the drama of another “victim”, Halle Rubenhold.

JM

[Observer]

Author Bruce Robinson has been very vocal about his detesting of 'Ripperologists'. The assumption a lot of these so-called experts hold is that us amateur sleuths are blindsided by every crackpot theory such as the Royal conspiracy or Maybrick's diary. They seem to think we sit at our computers trying to cram pet theories to fit established timelines and suspects. Robinson seems to hold the view that we follow slavishly anything stated by the authorities of the day, simply because they were in authority. I guess he holds that Victorian police were all corrupt and incompetent. In truth, most of the established Ripper authors and history experts offer very little. Here I can cross reference nearly anything I read or see about the case and find a plethora of great information from people who do it for the passion of it. I don't see any agendas, only researchers who seem intent on finding the best and most accurate information possible. A lot of the Ripperologists on here run rings around the haters!

Take no notice of them man! We're discussing a !23 year old unsolvable series of murders, not a cure for cancer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course it’s not a subject thats of life or death importance but truth is important. We can disagree amongst ourselves all we like and it matters little (even the personal digs) but how would other ‘subjects’ react to the same? How many groups can be labelled as misogynistic and be expected to accept it with response? Or as glorying in the sexual murder of women? Why should we accept as a group what we wouldn’t be prepared to accept as individuals?

[Observer]

Matters that have a direct affect on peoples lives, then yes the truth matters. Being labelled a "gory hunter" , or indeed a misogynist, because I take an interest in a late Victorian series of murders, doesn't annoy me at all. Again, why should it?

[jmenges]

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