The Whitechapel Society 1888 Victims Conference 8 Sept. 2018

[jmenges]

Water under the bridge, Gary.
In two months you might find something else to be upset about, and then I'll probably be in agreement with you.

Enjoy the show,

JM

[MrBarnett]

Here you are, Gary.



All fixed. If you would like to add anything then Twitter is free to join.

In regards to interview questions posed to Hallie, I will be more than happy to submit to her questions you, or anyone else may have. I'll be making an announcement once its confirmed that the one-on-one is taking place. Early next year.

JM

Just spotted this.

The least you could have done was to quote me fully and correctly. Pampered twat I’ll own up to (you’ll understand that this was in response to HR’s unprovoked attack on our ‘community’ lol), but I would never say ‘off of’.

My response in full:

I really hope this person has some significant new facts or insights to share. The last thing the women of the Victorian East End need is yet another pampered **** making money out of their misfortune without offering anything new.

[jmenges]

Hallie Rubenhold- 'The Lives of the Canonical Five'

https://www.whitechapelsociety.com

Available to stream or download now at the following link:

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=218

Also in iTunes, Google Podcast, TuneIn Radio, Podcast Addict and wherever else talks on Victorian Crime can be found.

Thank you for listening,



JM

[jmenges]

Here you are, Gary.



All fixed. If you would like to add anything then Twitter is free to join.

In regards to interview questions posed to Hallie, I will be more than happy to submit to her questions you, or anyone else may have. I'll be making an announcement once its confirmed that the one-on-one is taking place. Early next year.

JM

[MrBarnett]

Hi Paul,

Gary suggested that I engaged in character assassination in my twitter reply to a post that, as it turns out, he had written calling the author a twat. I'm just putting that out there to give whomever might be reading this some additional context. You know first hand that I don't agree with everything Hallie has said publicly and privately, but I do find it a bit rich that 'character assassination' has been leveled at me by someone who was calling a woman such names on a public message board.

JM

JM,

Have you only just realised that the PT commentator is not the person you described as having been banned from here there and everywhere? Criticise his (my) vehement defence of Ripperology (we were attacked first if you remember) if you must, but once you learned that you were slagging off the wrong person, shouldn't you have informed HR's 10,000-odd Twitter mates that you'd got it wrong?

As it stands on Twitter I'm racist, sexist, homophobic etc and haven't read a single Ripper book. Not my 'suggestions', your words. Please put that right.

I'm hoping that when you interview HR you will grill her on why she felt it necessary to dismiss the decades of research that has been conducted into the victims (not just the 'marketable' C5 she is concentrating on) on here and JTR Forums.

Gary

[jmenges]

Thanks, Paul.
Yet another example of why we must be more careful about what we post on the internet and social media. Myself included, obviously.
The next time I will simply name the person I'm describing so there's no ambiguity.

JM

[PaulB]

Hi Jonathan,
I appreciated that, which is why I added that little disclaimer at the end. It was very unfortunate that Hallie was taking offence at Gary's comment, and you assumed she was offended by someone else. You and Gary were both defending Ripperology, Gary saying the last things we needed was another book of empty promises and you were saying that the someone else wasn't representative of the Ripperology community. An unintentional and embarrassing mix up, hopefully now resolved. But just in case other people started to take sides, I thought it worthwhile to remind the good people of this parish that the fault lay - if it lay anywhere - with Hallie, whose remarks about Ripperologists prompted Gary's comment and whose apparent attempt to characterise Ripperology by that comment prompted yours.

[jmenges]

Hi Paul,

Gary suggested that I engaged in character assassination in my twitter reply to a post that, as it turns out, he had written calling the author a twat. I'm just putting that out there to give whomever might be reading this some additional context. You know first hand that I don't agree with everything Hallie has said publicly and privately, but I do find it a bit rich that 'character assassination' has been leveled at me by someone who was calling a woman such names on a public message board.

JM

[PaulB]

So just to set the record straight, Gary.
It was you who called Hallie Rubenhold a "pampered twat" on JtRForums, which Hallie saw and posted to her 10,000 twitter followers as coming from the Ripperology community. Sounded just like someone else, but thanks for the correction.




JM

Whatever one might say about 'pampered twat', a single individual isn't the 'Ripperology community' is it? Unfortunately, Rubenhold has attacked Ripperologists from the get-go, so if some are less than polite then what does she expect? It's sadly typical of her that she'd ignore her own actions, take offence at someone else's, and try to tar all Ripperologists with a brush that should be used on one. I'm not trying to take the blame away from anyone, but let's set the balance right. (I'm not aiming that at you, Jonathan, just trying to prevent others from taking sides here.)

[jmenges]

So just to set the record straight, Gary.
It was you who called Hallie Rubenhold a "pampered twat" on JtRForums, which Hallie saw and posted to her 10,000 twitter followers as coming from the Ripperology community. Sounded just like someone else, but thanks for the correction.




JM

[jmenges]

Hi Matty,

I was referring to Richard C. Cobb. The offensive post had been deleted before I made that tweet.

Was it made by you?

If so, my apologies.

JM

[MrBarnett]

JM,

Assuming this is you, whom did you think you were character assassinating here?



If it wasn't me, shouldn't you man up and admit your mistake?

If it was me, I'll be in touch with my lawyer, J. Noble Dagget at sunup.

Matty Ross

[jmenges]

And now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast...


The third talk from the Whitechapel Society's 'Victims' Conference held at Hanbury Hall on 8 September 2018.

Joyce Hampton: The Huguenots: From Victims to Saviours

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=204

https://www.whitechapelsociety.com

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

The article said that Rubenhold was 'blaming "sexist" historical policemen and researchers for erasing the stories of the victims.'

I don't think she meant that the stories were literally erased, only that the stories weren't found out and history doesn't record them. If so, it is an unjust comment for several reasons.

If you tried explaining your reasoning for that Paul I get the impression that you’d be accused of ‘mansplaining.’

I might be wrong but I predict that there will be little, if anything, new in this book. We all know how much time and effort researchers have put in trying add to our knowledge of the victim’s lives. There can be very little existing evidence still to be found as these women who were sadly only known because of how they met there end. Before that their lives barely made a ripple on the pool.

[PaulB]

Indeed. Another example might be Stephen Knight's Final Solution, written as it was at a time when talk of conspiracies and official cover-ups was all the rage: JFK, the moon landings, the Profumo scandal, Watergate, etc. There was also quite an appetite for "far-out" thinking at the time, as manifested in Flower Power and its associated New Age/aquarian sympathies, UFO "flaps" and the books of Erich von Däniken, Peter Underwood, Colin Wilson and their ilk.

I sense that the factors which inspired these phenomena still exert an influence on the way some people think, and write, about the Ripper case to this very day.

I mentioned Knight and the conspiracy theories prevailing in the 70s, and I had in mind the ancient astronaut arguments of Von Daniken and the Bermuda Triangle of Charles Berlitz (with whom I had occasion to cross swords!). There were some minor attempts to exploit anti-Semitic connotations with the Ripper by Nazi propagandists in WWII, of course. I'm not sure how Matters, Woodhall and Stewart fit into the idea, or whether the more factual approach to the subject in the 1990s could be perceived as a reaction to conspiracist arguments of the 70s and 80s, or whether it was simply a desire to get away from 'suspectology'. That was one thing that motivated me, but that motivation actually goes back to the 70s, so I don't know.