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

[PaulB]

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

Our responses may give publicity to her book, but that seems to me to be rather doubtful given that they're made on Ripper pages on Facebook or websites, so people would have to come here to find out why we object to her book, and ignoring the bad guys in the hope they’ll go away hasn't always worked very well, as a trawl back through history certainly proves. As I say, Tristan, we have lots of examples of theories that have been debunked over and over but have refused to go away, and we've already got several teachers claiming that HR's book will change the way they teach the subject, it's already crept into some coursework, and it's only a matter of time before it gets into some books. It's a silly worry, perhaps, but our little pool has been contaminated a lot of times over the years and perhaps it is important that we try to keep it clean.

[Losmandris]

Our responses may give publicity to her book, but that seems to me to be rather doubtful given that they're made on Ripper pages on Facebook or websites, so people would have to come here to find out why we object to her book, and ignoring the bad guys in the hope they’ll go away hasn't always worked very well, as a trawl back through history certainly proves. As I say, Tristan, we have lots of examples of theories that have been debunked over and over but have refused to go away, and we've already got several teachers claiming that HR's book will change the way they teach the subject, it's already crept into some coursework, and it's only a matter of time before it gets into some books. It's a silly worry, perhaps, but our little pool has been contaminated a lot of times over the years and perhaps it is important that we try to keep it clean.

All very true Paul! Difficult to argue with you on that. Unfortunately in this day and age there seems to be a real issue with the facts!

Tristan

[PaulB]

All very true Paul! Difficult to argue with you on that. Unfortunately in this day and age there seems to be a real issue with the facts!

Tristan

False facts and "alternative truths" are a genuine concern, and whilst I can't do anything about them in general, I'd hoped that the greater demand for facts and proper sourcing we've seen over the past twenty or thirty years would have given our subject a degree of respectability. It's a pity that HR has done her damndest to wreck that and pollute our little pool.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

It’s a neat trick Paul. Start by demonising the very people that can offer the most valid criticisms of your book. All of the following reviewers are starting from the position “well there’s no point in consulting that lot because they’re a closed club of biased misogynists (except for Herlock Sholmes of course.)” Err, ok I made that last bit up.

[Hunter]

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

I would figure it is a backdrop because a light source at that angle would be problematic to the photographer's light metering (backlighting). Also, indoor portraits were usually taken at a large aperture for a faster shutter speed, which would mean a shallow depth of field. The background in the window should be out of focus as a result.

[DJA]

Thanks Hunter.