Up coming Documentary

[Linotte]

Thanks for posting Linotte but I don’t do x so I can’t see the thread. What I can’t understand though, again from the point of view of a complete Luddite when it comes to Social Media, is why there isn’t an alternative/true version of events out there? Aren’t there any voices out there challenging her ability to control the narrative? The word ‘ripperologist’ is at the heart of the problem because it allows her and her supporters to label anyone making intimidating comments (I haven’t seen any of them so I can’t comment on the content) It’s become ‘Hallie vs Team Ripperology’ with no one speaking for people like us who have a genuine interest and aren’t knuckle-dragging misogynysts.

To quote Elton John, “…it’s a sad, sad situation.”

This incident was a nonstarter, IMO. I was the one who saw the posts and asked the person who had spoken during the Q&A what happened. Personally, I think Rubenhold had all of her ducks in a row in terms of how she was going to spin what was said here. That’s pretty obvious given the newspaper article was an “exclusive.” She probably is well aware that I’ve contacted her stakeholders a few times about her problematic behavior just asking that they handle it and get it to stop. And I had no problem doing it this time, either. But it doesn’t mean I enjoy the conflict or having to approach her stakeholders every time it gets out of control. It’s exhausting and I don’t understand it. Like, just stop being a jerk. How difficult can it be?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This. It occurred at Capital Crime 24 in London at the end of May. The newspaper article appeared a week later. This Twitter thread clarifies what occurred. https://x.com/linotteoiseau/status/1798553090553188509

It's impossible to determine the timeline, or if the reporter in question was at the event or if Rubenhold went to him with a transcript or recording from the event. Given the time gap and the paper appearing to be a local publication, my guess is the latter, though she didn't amplify the article. But he and/or his editor didn't bother to check anyone's social media or do any fact-checking prior to publishing the article. While I'm not going to mention who was involved publicly, it was confirmed that no one booed anyone directly. It actually occurred in a private conversation and was more of an, "Oh, boo," as a reference the fraught history between Rubenhold and Ripperologists. I emailed the reporter with the information and while he acknowledged my information, he never corrected the article. Either way, in my opinion, instead of responding to the question professionally and offering some real advice, Rubenhold took the opportunity to make it about her and tried to stir up the conflict between her and "Ripperologists." In my opinion, this was another attempt to try and use her platform to intimidate readers, reviewers, and other researchers and silence what she believes to be any negative or critical discussion of her work. That's not how this works. This is a business. Act like it. Her stakeholders were made aware of this and it seems to have been handled for now.

The irony about all of it is that the laws she discussed proposing would apply to her if passed, too. So hypothetically, if she engaged in some of the behavior we have seen in the past with these laws in effect, she would find herself in some hot water if someone decided to press charges. Not that I wish that on her or anyone, but I am not sure if the thought occurred to her.

Obviously, I wish her no harm, and I think she's entitled to her opinions and to promote her work, but she needs to do it without attacking or harming people.

I really need to watch my own mouth and be as professional as possible, so I am going to leave it at that.

Thanks for posting Linotte but I don’t do x so I can’t see the thread. What I can’t understand though, again from the point of view of a complete Luddite when it comes to Social Media, is why there isn’t an alternative/true version of events out there? Aren’t there any voices out there challenging her ability to control the narrative? The word ‘ripperologist’ is at the heart of the problem because it allows her and her supporters to label anyone making intimidating comments (I haven’t seen any of them so I can’t comment on the content) It’s become ‘Hallie vs Team Ripperology’ with no one speaking for people like us who have a genuine interest and aren’t knuckle-dragging misogynysts.

To quote Elton John, “…it’s a sad, sad situation.”

[Geddy2112]

In other news a new Documentary has landed on Netflix as part of the Unsolved Mysteries series.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32868600/?ref_=ttep_ep1

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/unsolved-mysteries-volume-4-episode-1-who-was-jack-the-ripper

The most excellent thing about it is [SPOILER ALERT] Lechmere is never mentioned haha.

[Linotte]

Thanks Linotte but…..what ‘little incident’ was that?

This. It occurred at Capital Crime 24 in London at the end of May. The newspaper article appeared a week later. This Twitter thread clarifies what occurred. https://x.com/linotteoiseau/status/1798553090553188509

It's impossible to determine the timeline, or if the reporter in question was at the event or if Rubenhold went to him with a transcript or recording from the event. Given the time gap and the paper appearing to be a local publication, my guess is the latter, though she didn't amplify the article. But he and/or his editor didn't bother to check anyone's social media or do any fact-checking prior to publishing the article. While I'm not going to mention who was involved publicly, it was confirmed that no one booed anyone directly. It actually occurred in a private conversation and was more of an, "Oh, boo," as a reference the fraught history between Rubenhold and Ripperologists. I emailed the reporter with the information and while he acknowledged my information, he never corrected the article. Either way, in my opinion, instead of responding to the question professionally and offering some real advice, Rubenhold took the opportunity to make it about her and tried to stir up the conflict between her and "Ripperologists." In my opinion, this was another attempt to try and use her platform to intimidate readers, reviewers, and other researchers and silence what she believes to be any negative or critical discussion of her work. That's not how this works. This is a business. Act like it. Her stakeholders were made aware of this and it seems to have been handled for now.

The irony about all of it is that the laws she discussed proposing would apply to her if passed, too. So hypothetically, if she engaged in some of the behavior we have seen in the past with these laws in effect, she would find herself in some hot water if someone decided to press charges. Not that I wish that on her or anyone, but I am not sure if the thought occurred to her.

Obviously, I wish her no harm, and I think she's entitled to her opinions and to promote her work, but she needs to do it without attacking or harming people.

I really need to watch my own mouth and be as professional as possible, so I am going to leave it at that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, both Hallie Rubenhold and Julia Laite are involved in this episode. This was confirmed on Lucy Worsley’s socials.

I’m not sure of how much creative control Worsley has over everything. I’m assuming quite a bit, as she and Rubenhold seem to have a personal and professional friendship and she’s having both Laite and Rubenhold on the episode. It seems to me that Worsley and her stakeholders are very image conscious. Worsley has built her brand on her own quirky personality and love of what she does, but she seems to be pretty invested in being seen as likable and relatively unproblematic. Worsley hasn’t engaged in the conflict between Rubenhold and Ripperologists, either, which says a lot, IMO. I don’t think this is going to be as controversial and contentious as we might think. And I think Rubenhold’s stakeholders have already advised her about what is and isn’t appropriate conduct with the release of her book so close. Especially after a little incident at the end of May that was nipped in the bud.

Thanks Linotte but…..what ‘little incident’ was that?

[Linotte]

Yes, both Hallie Rubenhold and Julia Laite are involved in this episode. This was confirmed on Lucy Worsley’s socials.

I’m not sure of how much creative control Worsley has over everything. I’m assuming quite a bit, as she and Rubenhold seem to have a personal and professional friendship and she’s having both Laite and Rubenhold on the episode. It seems to me that Worsley and her stakeholders are very image conscious. Worsley has built her brand on her own quirky personality and love of what she does, but she seems to be pretty invested in being seen as likable and relatively unproblematic. Worsley hasn’t engaged in the conflict between Rubenhold and Ripperologists, either, which says a lot, IMO. I don’t think this is going to be as controversial and contentious as we might think. And I think Rubenhold’s stakeholders have already advised her about what is and isn’t appropriate conduct with the release of her book so close. Especially after a little incident at the end of May that was nipped in the bud.

[Lewis C]

Rather you than me, Lewis C, in probing the mind of the author of Hallie's comic.

I know, Sam, I know.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There is a lot of bad theorizing in the Ripper case, but I really haven't noticed any misogyny even among the bad theorists. The bad theorists are bad in other ways. Maybe in Hallie's mind, everyone that thinks that the victims were prostitutes is a misogynist.

Rather you than me, Lewis C, in probing the mind of the author of Hallie's comic.

I know, Sam, I know.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I can't see why we shouldn't aspire to that end, and even if we only got partway there it would be a good thing. The least we can do is to call out illogical and/or biased thinking whenever it crops up.

Indeed, that would be a start. What is the most we could do, though? That was more what I was trying to get at, Sam.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lewis C]

There is a lot of bad theorizing in the Ripper case, but I really haven't noticed any misogyny even among the bad theorists. The bad theorists are bad in other ways. Maybe in Hallie's mind, everyone that thinks that the victims were prostitutes is a misogynist.

[Sam Flynn]

Agreed, Sam, and that might be the case in a perfect world, where anyone who openly expresses an opinion of a whole community, that is unfair, biased or unsupported by the facts, can expect legal action to be taken against them by that community, but it's not going to happen, is it?

I can't see why we shouldn't aspire to that end, and even if we only got partway there it would be a good thing. The least we can do is to call out illogical and/or biased thinking whenever it crops up.

[caz]

Agreed, Sam, and that might be the case in a perfect world, where anyone who openly expresses an opinion of a whole community, that is unfair, biased or unsupported by the facts, can expect legal action to be taken against them by that community, but it's not going to happen, is it?

We can all get cross and stamp our feet, or counter those opinions on social media with our own, but is there a final solution that will be more effective than Stephen Knight's, in putting the ripperological world to rights?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Caz

There is also the question of whether it's right to want anyone 'cancelled' for exercising their freedom to express a negative opinion of ripperologists in general, when it can justly be applied to some, if not a majority.

They can express any opinion they like as long as it's fair, balanced and factual. That doesn't extend to tarring the entire field and/or its contributors with the same brush.

[caz]

Is it possible for the ripperological "community" to sue these irresponsible hacks for defamation? Not just for the allegegations of misogyny, but also the apparent accusation of "ripperology" being sensationalist journalism. Of course there have been sensationalist theories, books (even the odd documentary), but most of the sensationalist guff comes from outside the realm of serious research.

It's a tricky one, Sam, because while it's nice to think that all the 'decent' ripperologists, who only go in for serious research, outnumber those who could rightly be accused of misogyny and pushing sensationalist theories [cough, cough, Trevor Marriott, cough, cough], some might argue - not me, I hasten to add - that it's up to all the good ripperologists to weed out the bad in their little community, if they don't want the entire field condemned by someone with clout or a loud voice. I don't think that could be achieved in any case, but nor should one ripperologist hold themselves responsible for the sins of another.

There is also the question of whether it's right to want anyone 'cancelled' for exercising their freedom to express a negative opinion of ripperologists in general, when it can justly be applied to some, if not a majority.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

^^^

Best wait until the episode has aired, to see exactly what's said. You never know, it might be a balanced critique... at least, a more balanced one than whoever wrote that blurb.