Rippercast Reviews 'The Five' by Hallie Rubenhold

[jmenges]

Thread for discussion of Rippercast's Review of...

'The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper'
by Hallie Rubenhold

With Debra Arif, Paul Begg, Amanda Lloyd, Robert McLaughlin, Jon Rees and Mark Ripper.
Hosted by Jonathan Menges.

To be released 3 March, 2019



Availlable in iTunes, Google Podcasts, Podbean, Podcast Addict and wherever honest and informative audio reviews of Ripper books can be found.

Also streaming at a Casebook link below...this Sunday.
Stay Tuned



JM

[jmenges]

Available to stream or download now from the following link:

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=222

Also in iTunes, Google Podcasts, Podcast Addict, TuneIn Radio, and wherever audio book reviews by Ripperologists-for Ripperologists can be found.

Thank you for listening,



JM

[Elamarna]

Excellent debate, fair and Frank.

[jmenges]

Thanks, Steve!

JM

[SkipToTheEnd]

I was quite surprised at the amount of inaccuracies the conversation bought up within the book both to do with the subject but also with the wider general essay writing skills such as mis-representing quotes, ignoring data and getting names wrong. I for one would have expected better from someone coming from a background in academic essay writing, as some seemed like silly errors even I wouldn't have made in my History degree (and I wasn't particularly good at essay writing).

I couldn't help but feel there's an underlying point she's trying to prove. My girlfriend whom is in psychological research has been reading up on the sex industry and in a few books there have been comments about how a 'middle class' group of the feminism movement is ultimately excluding sex workers (read: lower social classes) from their agenda - i wonder if this white washing of some of the women's past is to some how fit them within a wider politicised context. but this is merely speculation
(https://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolting-P.../dp/1786633604 -the book the above is bought up in)

also her lack of even bothering to debate her book on twitter et al also probably tells you everything you need to know about this book.

[jmenges]

I was quite surprised at the amount of inaccuracies the conversation bought up within the book both to do with the subject but also with the wider general essay writing skills such as mis-representing quotes, ignoring data and getting names wrong.

When reading through the book as a group, we were quite surprised at the amount of inaccuracies and misrepresentation we saw as well. Nearly every page contained something we could have mentioned. It was necessary for us to pick out just a few of the major ones and a small selection of the minor ones, otherwise our review of the book would take longer to listen to than the book itself takes to read.

Thanks for your feedback,

JM

[PaulB]

We didn't go looking for errors either. We knew the claim that three of the victims weren't prostitutes was likely wrong and it soon became clear that Rubenhold didn't have answers for the evidence that they were, but that she didn't even acknowledge that the evidence existed. She simply ignored it. Our familiarity with the case also made us question some of Rubenhold's statements, such as her claim that Wynne Baxter, the coroner, pressed Ellen Holland to admit that Nichols was a prostitute - or, as Rubenhold put it, 'in the hope she would make an incriminating statement about Polly’s assumed profession.' This sounded interesting, but, of course, there is no evidence that Baxter did that at all. Nichols’ final words to Holland were that she intended to get her doss money and return to 18 Thrawl Street, therefore Baxter was obliged to inquire how Holland thought Nichols intended to get her doss money. After all, it was the coroner’s job to ascertain as best he could the probable circumstances of a person’s death, and that involved establishing where Nicholls might have gone, what she was doing, who she might see, and so on. There is no evidence that Baxter posed the questions IN THE HOPE that Holland would ‘INCRIMINATE’ her friend. Quite often we found the actual reports weren't quite as Rubenhold described them. As for little mistakes, like called Israel Lipski 'Moses Lipski', and Adolf Beck 'Alfred Beck', I don't think we noted many of those.

[jmenges]

Pg.69: HR writes, ‘“The coroner took the opportunity once more to question Ellen as to her comment that Polly intended to find the money for her lodgings. “I suppose you formed an opinion of what that meant,” he interjected.’

As you pointed out elsewhere Paul, this question was asked by the foreman of the jury, Mr Horey, not by the coroner, Wynne Baxter, but Rubenhold places it as coming from Baxter’s lips to help drive home her point that he was pressuring the witness.

JM

[Tom_Wescott]

It was an excellent episode. Everyone contributed. Mark Ripper, in particular, was in fine form. He is rather terrifying.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PaulB]

It was an excellent episode. Everyone contributed. Mark Ripper, in particular, was in fine form. He is rather terrifying.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yes, he's somebody you want on your side in a row!

[Semper_Eadem]

Well, at least said Rubenhold's 'Convent Garden Ladies' was pretty good. I might give Five a go, it is nice to have something I can actually get a hold of on the bio of the Victims.

However on the other hand, I don't like misinformation. I see red on Richard III and how he is portrayed as misunderstood and that the Princes In The Tower really ended up living full and happy lives by people who have no idea just how brutal people were back then in the 15th cent. and that basically if you had enough gold you could find a biddable Priest and pretty much buy your way into Heaven back then though contrition and remission of Sins, even the SIN Murdering your 12 and 10 yr old Nephews!!!!!!.

So, I will keep my grain of salt handy. Pretty through Critique.

[Sam Flynn]

I might give Five a go, it is nice to have something I can actually get a hold of on the bio of the Victims.

Philip Sugden's classic book on the Ripper contains a large amount of useful biographical information about the victims, much of it derived from Neal Shelden's research, which Sugden acknowledges. With the victims sympathetically portrayed within their historical and social context, the book remains essential reading for anyone interested in the women's lives and the Ripper case in general.

[Semper_Eadem]

Thanks for the info.

[bjgourley]

It sounds, from the podcast, that she is doing everything possible to deny the fact that there is decent evidence they were engaged in prostitution, and that it was sexist police that put the idea out there. However, if one types 'prostitution Victorian England' into a search bar, you get close to 1 million hits. It seems to me she is selling some strange revisionist agenda. On her twitter feed, she certainly doesn't rebuke the myriad derogatory comments about Ripper authors and ripperology in general, on the contrary, it's as though she promotes it and blocks anyone who even questions her findings or motives.
The only good that can come out of it is the possibility of a small percentage of readers the who become truly interested in the case, and move beyond her narrative to see it in all its hideous splendour. Who amongst us got sucked in by Cornwell or Knight, or by the From Hell graphic novel for that matter.
Another great podcast Jonathan, keep up the great work.

[Busy Beaver]

Hallie was talking on BBC women's hour about the Ripper victims on March 26.