Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by etenguy 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: Albert Backert - did he emigrate? - by RockySullivan 5 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: H H holmes - by DirectorDave 9 hours ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Abby Normal 10 hours ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Sam Flynn 11 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - by Madam Detective 11 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (12 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: H H holmes - (1 posts)
General Discussion: Albert Backert - did he emigrate? - (1 posts)
Witnesses: The Bucks Row Project part 2 - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4031  
Old 08-17-2017, 05:46 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJA View Post
Jack the Ripper was 53.
Yes, but when?

In 1888?

Or.... eventually?
__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4032  
Old 08-17-2017, 10:28 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
And that is why nobody is too worried about the Return of Ike: Faulty logic.
OMG - pot, kettle, black alert! Please take that Basic Statistics book back to the shop and demand a refund, mate! I'm guessing you either have no statistics background or else that you struggled with it thirty years ago at school?

Quote:
There is one sky. On a given day a large number of clouds form, change, and pass away in that one sky. Pixels, etc ...
I absolutely agree that a large number of clouds form - that was actually my point and I suspect one or two of my dedicated readers will have already noticed that. Wherever you have sufficient quantities of variable events, you will eventually have the possibility of 'images' emerging from some examples of them. The fact that there is one sky is obviously irrelevant as I didn't imply there wasn't only one sky (that would be weird, even for me!). But please don't think you can associate one sky with one photograph, therefore multiple clouds with multiple pixels, therefore like with like, for in that line of 'reasoning' would lie the true home of your 'faulty logic'.

The point about multiple events causing random 'images' is lost when we go from the macro world of clouds down to the micro level of pixels. You can't compare the two (and still expect to be taken seriously). It's like saying that water is wet so any given water molecule must be wet (Zen-beautiful, but not a process you should be expecting to win - or even just back up - an argument with). Clouds vary in their appearance, and the burning marks on toast vary. Eventually, you will 'get' Che and Elvis purely by random chance.

If you are arguing that pixels vary randomly independent of the image they have captured is deeply unsettling. Pixels vary non-randomly based upon the image they have captured! They vary because what they represent varies. That is the purpose they serve. It is not an interpretation of the mind with pixels (as it is with clouds or toast or whatever) - pixels vary because they capture different bits of information!

But thank you for giving me this opportunity to explain to you how statistics works. Take the book back, it's full of faulty logic.

And while I'm on the subject: The possible presence of other letters is not an issue we should be labouring over. There could be a hundred letters on Kelly's wall, but still the chances of getting something that looks extremely similar to Florence Maybrick's initials - in their correct order - would still remain reasonably small. The fact that there have only been a small handful of rather questionable leters 'discovered' implies that that probability then becomes vanishingly small. If you understand statistics, then this should cause some consternation amongst those who believe the journal is a hoax (unless your argument is - as Sammy's is becoming - that the hoaxer was actually the first to detect those letters and used them to backward-engineer the hoax from). Possibly the person who wrote 'FM' (if they did) on Kelly's wall may or may not have been the author of the other letters, and maybe the other letters are just interpretations of the human mind. It doesn't matter. The point is that to fulfill the 'prophecy' of the journal, we need one or more example of 'F' and 'M' in Kelly's room, and lo and behold we appear to have them. We'll never agree on whether we do 'have them' so it's probably pointless our even trying. We can see 'FM' miraculously on Kelly's wall. We can see an 'F' carved into Kelly's left arm (really not sure what Sammy was meaning when he said it was upside down, the wrong way 'round, etc., by the way - the 'F' on her arm would appear as an 'F' if her arm was straight), and we can detect 'M's in other ways which you will mainly disagree with. I don't blame you for disagreeing - it would be illogical of you to accept that they are there and simultaneously argue that they do not support the journal's 'prediction'. But ultimately the critical point is that the journal makes a clear enough prediction ("An initial here", etc.) and that prediction appears to be supported by the photograph of Kelly's death scene. This is the critical bit. This is the bit which statistics tells you cannot happen by chance alone but once in a universe of time, and that therefore this is either that one random chance in a universe of time or else it is not random. If it is not random, there must have been intentionality, and I for one am happy that that intentionality sat for a short while in the mind of one James Maybrick, Liverpool cotton merchant and serial killer for the Saga generation.

Ike
Clever is as clever does
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4033  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:42 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Statistics? Considering the problem of inductive reasoning then, ultimately, it's all a matter of faith: https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/pu...induction.html
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4034  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:59 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
There could be a hundred letters on Kelly's wall, but still the chances of getting something that looks extremely similar to Florence Maybrick's initials - in their correct order - would still remain reasonably small
But they almost certainly weren't "written" in the correct order - the "M", if it is an "M", is in much bolder ink (i.e. blood) than the "F", which is hardly visible, if it's truly visible at all. In other words, the "ink" is bolder nearest the point at which the blood from Kelly's neck would have sprayed, getting fainter as one goes from "M" to "F".
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4035  
Old 08-18-2017, 01:44 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Statistics? Considering the problem of inductive reasoning then, ultimately, it's all a matter of faith: https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/pu...induction.html
I think it is a little patronising to publish a link on inductive reasoning. You should summarise it and put it in your own words so that we know you know what you're talking about.

And of course it is definitely statistics or the backward-engineering of a hoaxer (if those letters are there) and either the tunnel vision of faith or else a freak random event which happened to coincidide with the journal's prediction (if it turns out they aren't).

It's not as simple as faith-because-I-don't-like-the-alternative.

Last edited by Iconoclast : 08-18-2017 at 01:56 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4036  
Old 08-18-2017, 01:51 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
But they almost certainly weren't "written" in the correct order - the "M", if it is an "M", is in much bolder ink (i.e. blood) than the "F", which is hardly visible, if it's truly visible at all. In other words, the "ink" is bolder nearest the point at which the blood from Kelly's neck would have sprayed, getting fainter as one goes from "M" to "F".
I'd say that Kaz made a fair challenge to the M-as-brighter-than-the-F argument (that is, whatever Maybrick used for the F was too thin so he used something else for the M or refreshed the blood (presumably) for the M).

I agree that there are versions of the picture which have been posted in the last few days which distorts the M and even makes it look constructed from straight lines which could - if that were true - be rivulets (those pesky rivulets again!).

Digital pixelated pictures of Mona Lisa from a distance look like Mona Lisa. This is entirely intentional. You get up too close and all you can see are the constituent pixels, distorting the image out of 'existence' (obviously, as a Zen Buddhist, I'd have to argue that Mona is not actually there though the intention to create her image for our eyes is there - just saying, not judging, LOL).

The point is that Maybrick painted an FM which shows up routinely in modern prints of Kelly's death scene; and no amount of distortion should cause that fact to be lost to us.

Ike

Last edited by Iconoclast : 08-18-2017 at 01:57 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4037  
Old 08-18-2017, 02:01 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
I'd say that Kaz made a fair challenge to the M-as-brighter-than-the-F argument (that is, whatever Maybrick used for the F was too thin so he used something else for the M or refreshed the blood (presumably) for the M).
Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. He could always have gone back and "touched-up" the F if that had been the case. If he wanted to write "FM", the "F" would have been much clearer than it is, no doubt about it.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4038  
Old 08-18-2017, 02:10 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
I think it is a little patronising to publish a link on inductive reasoning. You should summarise it and put it in your own words so that we know you know what you're talking about.

And of course it is definitely statistics or the backward-engineering of a hoaxer (if those letters are there) and either the tunnel vision of faith or else a freak random event which happened to coincidide with the journal's prediction (if it turns out they aren't).

It's not as simple as faith-because-I-don't-like-the-alternative.
Oh dear, I assumed you'd know about all this stuff as you appear to be so knowledgeable. But, of course, appearances can be deceptive!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4039  
Old 08-18-2017, 02:13 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. He could always have gone back and "touched-up" the F if that had been the case. If he wanted to write "FM", the "F" would have been much clearer than it is, no doubt about it.
Well he could, Sam. Or he could not. Once again (this is a very common theme with you), it is not for you to inform us of Maybrick's state of mind or mental process. It is for Maybrick and Maybrick alone to decide whether he did or did not wish to improve the legibility of the F.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4040  
Old 08-18-2017, 02:14 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Oh dear, I assumed you'd know about all this stuff as you appear to be so knowledgeable. But, of course, appearances can be deceptive!
I'm really confused John. Did you read a post somewhere where I have said I don't know what inductive reasoning is?

Please clarify because your post seems to infer this heavily. I assume you aren't simply refering to my previous post on the subject as this clearly states no such thing.

Ike
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.