why is there no evidence that shows sir jim was in liverpool

[Victor]

IThe best we could realistically hope for would be "he was in X, Y or Z town on A, B and C dates".

Isn't there evidence of him being at a Grand National?

[Soothsayer]

Isn't there evidence of him being at a Grand National?

It is true that the evidence places him at the Grand National of 1889; however, he had stopped carving up more than the odd Sunday roast some six months earlier, so that doesn't really help.

Our challenge is to locate him somewhere other than the murder sites at the time or even date of the murrders (as they say in Glasgow).

[Crystal]

Well, off you go then, Soothsayer. But don't you see, that won't prove anything at all? I say again, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Or, if you like, even if you can't place Maybrick anywhere else during the times of the murders, it doesn't mean that he was in London, carrying them out. What a waste of time.

[Soothsayer]

Well, off you go then, Soothsayer. But don't you see, that won't prove anything at all? I say again, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Or, if you like, even if you can't place Maybrick anywhere else during the times of the murders, it doesn't mean that he was in London, carrying them out. What a waste of time.

Crystal,

I am utterly convinced that if we were to place James Maybrick somewhere other than any one or more of the murder sites (say, having a pint with his mates in Liverpool at the time) that that would be reasonably good evidence that he was not Jack The Ripper.

Say it ain't so, and I shall cease breathing for a day in shock.

[Crystal]

Well yes, obviously. Well, no, not exactly. It might well demonstrate it to your satisfaction, but come on, surely you know that even if that were the case, and it could be demonstrated that Maybrick was elsewhere at the time of one or more of the murders, there'd be somebody who'd pipe up and say that you can't prove that JTR did all the canonical 5, so his absence doesn't put Maybrick out of the picture. I'm afraid I think you'd probably need to prove that Maybrick wasn't even in the country on the occasion of all the murders to be certain.

I'll be amazed if you can do that. Nonetheless, say you don't manage to prove he was anywhere else during the time of the murders - here's the thing - it doesn't prove anything at all - except that you don't have the evidence to place him outside London. Now, that may be because Maybrick was in London, or it may be that the evidence to place him elsewhere does not survive, or it may be that there wasn't any evidence to start with. Who knows?

Absence of Evidence - the lack of proof of Maybrick's whereabouts in this case,
is not Evidence of Absence - does not demonstrate that Maybrick was or was not in London, Liverpool, or downtown Basra at the time of the murders, or that he was, or was not, JTR.

So unless you can find the evidence to prove Maybrick's exact whereabouts during the salient times, its a waste of time. As I said.

[Bob Hinton]

The problem with this thread.....

is that it is meaningless. If you are hoping that by proving Maybrick was elsewhere when one of the murders was committed that would clear him, think again.

All that would happen is the pro Maybrickians would say 'Ah yes but that murder was a copycat'. We've had this with Tumblety and him being under arrest at the time of the MJK murder. All we had then was 'Ah but that one was done by Barnett' etc.

Don't forget Prince Albert Victor has been shown to be at various places when the murders were committed, that still doesn't stop some people believing he did it!

[Crystal]

Exactly, it is meaningless.

[Soothsayer]

Absence of Evidence - the lack of proof of Maybrick's whereabouts in this case,
is not Evidence of Absence - does not demonstrate that Maybrick was or was not in London, Liverpool, or downtown Basra at the time of the murders, or that he was, or was not, JTR.

So unless you can find the evidence to prove Maybrick's exact whereabouts during the salient times, its a waste of time. As I said.

I think we're in agreement here, Crystal, albeit from different belief camps regarding Maybrick as the killer - I just don't recall claiming otherwise (I appreciate, that not being elsewhere is not proof that you were somewhere).

I take the following point too from Mr Hinton. I guess that leaves us with having to demonstrate that he couldn't have killed any of the canonical 5 (Maybrick, not Bob Hinton, I mean ) to categorically refute his claims to this strangest of thrones.