"Skewering The Ripperologists" Bad Women Podcast- Hallie Rubenhold

[Howard Brown]

I have a horrible feeling that someone like Drew would draw back from getting involved in an academic row with Rubenhold, because in real world terms our subject is very small beer.
-Paul Begg-

You may remember that when Gray did write an opinion concerning Mrs. McGrath's insistence that the Whitechapel victims weren't prostitutes, she went off on him, leaving the bystander to interpret this admonishment by her on him as her way of saying Gray was breaking ranks and siding with her imagined 'enemy' and the enemies of all womankind.

I think ( I will go look) that this exchange is on the site somewhere.

[Howard Brown]

Paul:

I just looked at the 'Police Magistrate' thread where the exchange was copied and posted a couple of years ago, but it's inaccessible since Gray has privatized his blog.

In essence, Gray, not overtly critical or rude to La Boca Grande in his review of her shit book, merely pointed out what everyone and his brother knows about the victims....they were 'on the game'.

She blasted him, dismissing his criticism in such a way that gave the reader a distinct impression that she was more irritated that he defended the non-academics rather than her.

As expected, he offered no rebuttal.

[Gary Barnett]

Perhaps Drew was a poor choice. Although he didn’t invoke the Twitter mob when his book was critiqued, he refused to engage in any discussion about it. James Hardiman was no more a knacker than Kate Eddowes was a writer of ballads.

[Howard Brown]

Perhaps Drew was a poor choice. Although he didn’t invoke the Twitter mob when his book was critiqued, he refused to engage in any discussion about it. James Hardiman was no more a knacker than Kate Eddowes was a writer of ballads.
-Gary Barnett-

Exactly. Gray's preferred suspect was pisspoor.

[Michael Banks]

Hardiman was alive at the time How. What more do you want.

[Howard Brown]

Damn ! I forgot that, Mike....

[Gary Barnett]

Damn ! I forgot that, Mike....

Call yourself a Ripperologist? And you missed a vital clue like that???

[Howard Brown]

A thousand pardons, Sahib ! I forgot anyone with a heartbeat in Autumn 1888 can be considered a bona fide suspect !

[Gary Barnett]

A thousand pardons, Sahib ! I forgot anyone with a heartbeat in Autumn 1888 can be considered a bona fide suspect !

I appreciate the Indian reference. Puts me in mind of a vicious, blind ex soldier who had been court-martialled in Poona in 1882. Lived in Spitalfields and St George E, sold laces in the streets, married Pearly Poll, ended up in the loony bin …

[Howard Brown]

Ummm....wasn't that Squibby Rubenhold...or am I mistaken ?

[Gary Barnett]

Ummm....wasn't that Squibby Rubenhold...or am I mistaken ?

Both short, but only one of them blind (to the truth).

[Paul]

I don't want to get into the middle of anything here, but Drew is a good guy and sympathetic towards Ripperology (which is rare among academics), and whilst his book was not everything it should have been and was ill-considered, he was asked to review HR's book by what I would consider to be a prestigious popular history magazine, and he wrote a fair, unbiased review which basically accused Rubenhold of editing a quote to make it appear to say something it didn't. That was a very serious accusation that could kill a career, and as it was unquestionably true, it's unsurprising that HR blew a gasket. It wasn't really necessary for Drew to engage with HR's fury. What he's said was correct. It's quite possible that Rubenhold's response spoke eloquently enough for those who were paying attention. The trouble is that we don't have Drew's clout. He's a bug to be worried about, Ripperologists are looked upon as little tics, annoying and sometimes irritating, but otherwise unimportant.

[Edward Stow]

I all too frequently drive down Blindmans Lane in Cheshunt, a mere tap-tap-tap away from Gews Corner (who are not the men...), and who lived there? Acting Sergeant Amos Simpson, with his bloodied shawl.
It all adds up.

Dew did not employ any sort of academic rigour in his book - no more than Rubenhold.
And he will not put his head above the parapet and choose to die on the Ripperologists hill.

[Chris Phillips]

Paul:

I just looked at the 'Police Magistrate' thread where the exchange was copied and posted a couple of years ago, but it's inaccessible since Gray has privatized his blog.

His review is still accessible here though:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201107230458/https://thepolicemagistrate.blog/2019/03/10/a-welcome-new-insight-into-the-lives-of-the-rippers-victims/amp/

[Gary Barnett]

I don't want to get into the middle of anything here, but Drew is a good guy and sympathetic towards Ripperology (which is rare among academics), and whilst his book was not everything it should have been and was ill-considered, he was asked to review HR's book by what I would consider to be a prestigious popular history magazine, and he wrote a fair, unbiased review which basically accused Rubenhold of editing a quote to make it appear to say something it didn't. That was a very serious accusation that could kill a career, and as it was unquestionably true, it's unsurprising that HR blew a gasket. It wasn't really necessary for Drew to engage with HR's fury. What he's said was correct. It's quite possible that Rubenhold's response spoke eloquently enough for those who were paying attention. The trouble is that we don't have Drew's clout. He's a bug to be worried about, Ripperologists are looked upon as little tics, annoying and sometimes irritating, but otherwise unimportant.

Surely, despite his denial, Drew is a Ripperologist. Or am I misunderstanding what a Ripperologist is? He studies and writes about the Whitechapel murders. He has a deep interest in the case and its societal context.

That’s it, isn’t it?

Drew is more of a Ripperologist than I am. And Hallie’s not far off.

Are you suggesting, Paul/Ed, that Drew would not address the flaws in The Five while teaching his course at Northampton for fear of being mauled by Hallie and her Twitter mob? Is that what we’ve come to?