Hallie Rubenhold in conversation with Bee Rowaltt (20/02/20)

[richardh]

Hallie Rubenhold in conversation with Bee Rowaltt..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=giwCmU2szv4&feature=emb_logo

[richardh]

Discuss this:

https://youtu.be/giwCmU2szv4?t=2528

[DJA]

Largely regurgitating what we already know,along with fiction masquerading as fact.

Wonder how much of her research is her research.

[DJA]

Discuss this:

Do you reckon the window in the background is natural or a "backdrop" as Hallie informs us in her book?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Personally I can’t see anything to make me think that had to be a backdrop.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Discuss this:
https://youtu.be/giwCmU2szv4?t=2528

Hmm. Can't say I agree with her, but certainly nothing to get offended by either. I suppose, by self identifying as a "Ripperologist" or acknowledging a "ripper" community, there's always going to be criticism levelled at us, it's a shame that it's always in the vein of implying that we glorify the killer, or admire him somehow. It's also a shame that the only press coverage and media potrayals are generally some far fetched conspiracy or something with a twist because ultimately they need to attract viewers etc. I'm not disputing that most of us are intrigued by the mystery, I'm guessing that Ms Rubenhold was at some point.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I'd say the Chapman wedding photo ticks the boxes for being a photographers studio. Husband propped up by a piece of furniture. 'Window' appears to be at an odd angle, it's not parallel with the wall behind the man, but there's no corner either?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hmm. Can't say I agree with her, but certainly nothing to get offended by either. I suppose, by self identifying as a "Ripperologist" or acknowledging a "ripper" community, there's always going to be criticism levelled at us, it's a shame that it's always in the vein of implying that we glorify the killer, or admire him somehow. It's also a shame that the only press coverage and media potrayals are generally some far fetched conspiracy or something with a twist because ultimately they need to attract viewers etc. I'm not disputing that most of us are intrigued by the mystery, I'm guessing that Ms Rubenhold was at some point.

She’s enjoying a wave of uncritical praise and no one appears to be able to question her. The problem is that reviewers just assume that she’s done brilliant research and is correct in everything she says. I mean, I could read a book on say the Zodiac case then review and say - “this is a brilliant book with some fantastic new research and with a refreshingly different viewpoint.” Then the praise gets amplified. But an authority on the subject will say “well this is wrong, and that’s wrong, and he’s made this up etc.” How can you praise research if you haven’t checked it’s validity? How can you demonise a whole group of people without getting to know them. The interviewer actually accused ripperologists of ‘perviness!’ They even mock the word Ripperologist as if we invented the word to make ourselves sound like scientists. They even accused ripperologists of creating the ripper museum. One of us probably shot JFK too or sank the Titanic.

In my best Oliver Hardy voice “the women were sleeping....!”

https://youtu.be/qXzUddnEI1U

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd say the Chapman wedding photo ticks the boxes for being a photographers studio. Husband propped up by a piece of furniture. 'Window' appears to be at an odd angle, it's not parallel with the wall behind the man, but there's no corner either?

It could be Al. I don’t know why she’d state it as a fact though. Then again......

[DJA]

I'd say the Chapman wedding photo ticks the boxes for being a photographers studio. Husband propped up by a piece of furniture. 'Window' appears to be at an odd angle, it's not parallel with the wall behind the man, but there's no corner either?

Apparently done at a Brompton Road studio.

Much of her work is good and for instance,backgrounds Chapman's fall from grace.
Annie's drinking was possibly fueled by PTSD.

His employment by Sir Francis Barry at St. Leonard's Hill is interesting and explains how Annie's alcohol rehab was funded and the 10/- a week after the separation.

Really don't agree with some of what she comes up with.

She'd be right at home here

[Herlock Sholmes]

She doing Crippen next. Perhaps Cora committed suicide and then buried herself.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I'm waiting for "The Five" to be stockpiled in The Works before I buy a copy.

I think Herlock's description of a wave of uncritical praise is about right, and I can see why it irks so many, but ultimately the praise is coming from the wrong places. As a historical book, it was roundly criticised by her peer group. She's run with the whole Ripperology backlash because it's the only attention out there now. But people have access to information like never before. Anyone can actually check the criticism for themselves, and the longer the books out there, the more this will happen. "Final Solution" enjoyed massive support and sales because the lay reader couldn't check the facts easily at that time, a quick browse of the net today though...
As for the Crippen book, it's rehashing the premise. It'll be a Ruth Ellis one next. Or 'women of the Titanic'. But since there's not really a 'Crippenology' community, there'll be no backlash, no publicity and a straight to the bargain bin book if she chooses to cherry pick 'facts' to suit her story.
On a side note, what is this Jack The Ripper governing body that sanctions and approves any and all things Jack, that we're apparently all members of? I don't recall approving Museums or loony tunes Illuminati conspiracy speakers. Was that you lot?

[PaulB]

I'm waiting for "The Five" to be stockpiled in The Works before I buy a copy.

I think Herlock's description of a wave of uncritical praise is about right, and I can see why it irks so many, but ultimately the praise is coming from the wrong places. As a historical book, it was roundly criticised by her peer group. She's run with the whole Ripperology backlash because it's the only attention out there now. But people have access to information like never before. Anyone can actually check the criticism for themselves, and the longer the books out there, the more this will happen. "Final Solution" enjoyed massive support and sales because the lay reader couldn't check the facts easily at that time, a quick browse of the net today though...
As for the Crippen book, it's rehashing the premise. It'll be a Ruth Ellis one next. Or 'women of the Titanic'. But since there's not really a 'Crippenology' community, there'll be no backlash, no publicity and a straight to the bargain bin book if she chooses to cherry pick 'facts' to suit her story.
On a side note, what is this Jack The Ripper governing body that sanctions and approves any and all things Jack, that we're apparently all members of? I don't recall approving Museums or loony tunes Illuminati conspiracy speakers. Was that you lot?

The trouble is that the Duke of Clarence theory was demolished within days of being published, it being shown that he wasn't in London when several of the murders were committed. Much of Stephen Knight's theory was thrown into question soon after publication (notably by Simon Wood). The "diary" hasn't been accepted as genuine, Wynne Weston Davies claim that a relative was Mary Kelly was shot down within days of publication, the shawl is dismissed as lacking provenance and even the DNA was questioned... Okay, some of the invective on websites like Casebook was out of order, but it wasn't because those theories offended Ripperologists or challenged Ripperologists' pre-conceived ideas or didn't agree with the pronouncements of some imagined heirarchy. It was because people believed those theories to be wrong.

And yet those theories are still with us, along with other daft notions, such as Lewis Carroll. So the problem is that Rubenhold's claims will be with us in the years and decades to come. People will believe that there isn't a scrap of evidence that the victims weren't prostitutes, they'll believe that they were branded prostitutes because that's how all homeless women were branded by a misogynistic police and press, they'll believe the victims went to the places they were found to sleep, and, of infinitly less importance, they'll believe the lives of the victims were unresearched until Hallie Rubenhold came along, and they'll believe that you and I are a load of unhealthy tossers (I can't speak for you, but I'm not unhealthy. Well, not in that sense anyway). Remember, The Five won an award for non-fiction!

I admit it does concern me that as far as I am aware not one single reviewer has approached a Ripperologist for their opinion of Rubenhold's arguments, but have all uncritically bought into her claims. It seems that not one of them has thought to wonder if Ripperologists have genuinely never researched the lives of the victims or never questioned whether they were prostitutes or not. Rubenhold claims that Ripperologists compared her to Holocaust denier David Irving. They didn't. She complains that a websites has 300 pages defaming her. The fact is that that thread was dead when she revived it by tweeting a five-month-old post and encouraging sexual comments, thereby provoking an understandable and predictable response. And she hasn't been defamed or libelled either, as far as I know.

"She's run with the whole Ripperology backlash because it's the only attention out there now. But people have access to information like never before. Anyone can actually check the criticism for themselves, and the longer the books out there, the more this will happen." I hope the tide will turn and that people will read the genuine criticism, not the invective, and will recognise that Rubenhold has written an entertaining book and provided valuable context, but that the crux of her information was reseachered by Ripperologists and that the book is heavilly agenda driven. We, I think, have to make that known so that those who seek the truth can find it.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Very well put Mr B. Perhaps you should point her towards a good book on the subject, one dealing with "The Facts"?

[Losmandris]

It will all blow over soon enough. We shouldn't get too hung up on what is or has been said otherwise we just end up making things worse. Most people will finish the book and move on, others who want to find a bit more will soon find out that HR has been somewhat liberal with the truth and that what she puts forward as the truth will not stand up to scrutiny. Maybe some of them will find they way over here?

Her's is nothing more than another theory that is easily debunked. We should leave her to selling her particular brand of snake oil and try not to rise to the bait, as hard as that may well be!

Tristan