Your thoughts on The Five by Hallie Rubenhold???

[PaulB]

Oh dear me. I actually read the book, and while some reviewers have gone overboard in praise, I liked the concept and, er, execution. The "sleep" theory is absurd, but the use of it does not invalidate the book. I found the social history to be fascinating, and I am not ignorant of the Victorian Age. I also find the use of the term "political correctness" in some of the above comments to be downright nasty. It's as bad as cancel culture--"she tries to document the lives of women which is PC and therefore we cancel her". Compared to some of the tripe written about the Ripper--"H.H. Holmes did it!" "We have magic DNA from the 'Eddowes shawl' which isn't a shawl and didn't belong to Eddowes!" "Queen Victoria had it done!" "I have a diary!"--Rubenhold is a paragon of accuracy.

Some theories are tripe, although, depending on how you define 'Ripperologist', the ones you mention were not advanced by Ripperologists. Indeed, Ripperologits have been - and still are - as critical of them as they have been of The Five. The lives of the suspects is good, but it had been researched by Ripperologists and compiled into a narrative by Rubenhold. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, but Rubenhold implies that she did the research and she is condemnatory about Ripperologists, which they reasonably dislike. As for the rest of the book, it leaves out all the evidence that runs counter to her arguments, she edits quotes to makes them appear to say things they didn't or to paint individuals (like Edward Fairfield) in a bad light, which is bad historical practice. And finally, she will not respond to her critics, and she encourages her followers to be as disparaging and dismissive of them as she is herself. I don't altogether blame her, but I believe someone who tries to rewrite history should defend her conclusions, as unpleasant as that might be.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, so please refer me to the correct thread if you'd like (I'm new to the Forum). I'm reading The Five, and -- frankly -- find Rubenhold's "sleeping beauty" theory, as I call it, to be absolutely ridiculous. It not only flies in the face of the evidence but also the psychopathology of serial killers. I also find it almost offensive that she's trying so hard to prove that these women weren't prostitutes. So what if they were? Does that make them unworthy human beings? Don't murdered prostitutes deserve our sympathy? And finally, her belief that male writers smugly dismiss the five canonical victims as "just" prostitutes is hogwash. Many male writers have written about the victims with great sympathy. What do you experts think?

I dont believe much of the storyline she creates, but I will say this about the prostitution angle above.....as a matter of historical fact, only the first 2 victims were known to be soliciting when they met their killer. They both admitted as much to confidantes. In these murders there is no evidence the killer and victim knew each other, although its strongly suggested by the details in the fifth murder, so if these were stranger killing stranger murders, then the fact that the first 2 were soliciting might be something we can incorporate into some kind of MO for the killer.

[Michael W Richards]

Just to amend my post above, I think its important to A) recognize the fact that there is a difference between a prostitute and an Unfortunate. Prostitutes do that for a living, Unfortunates do what they have to do to survive, eat and get shelter. Unmarried or widowed women without support.

Maybe identifying which category the victim falls under might be iluminating in terms of the investigations as a whole. I think Polly was a prostitute, I think Annie supported herself regularly with that kind of work, I think Stride already had a bed waiting for her and made money on the day she was killed, Kate I do believe in general did not solicit, and I think Mary felt too marketable to be working the streets along with the dishevelled. Mary is also the only woman who had a weekly rented room in her own name.