Favorite suspect/s?

[Elamarna]

You might have a long wait there Steve.

Come on though.......isnt the fact that it was completely and absolutely impossible enough for you?

The issue of course is that we are told the argument is that Mizen never says they are togeather, so maybe they are apart. That is a false argument.

The Real argument is that Mizen Never even suggests the pair are apart.

Without such the accounts of the two Carmen, Paul and Lechmere, that both spoke to Mizen remain intact, and thus the speculated possability is an impossibility.

Why is that so hard to acknowledge?


Steve

[caz]

Absolutely. The innocent bystander on his way to work-card could only be played once.

So your original argument, that your man deliberately carried on killing in places where he had legitimate reasons to go, after going out of his way in Buck's Row to play his only "on my way to x" card, can now be flushed down the outside privy of 29 Hanbury Street?

What was he going to say in that situation? "I was caught short there and had a legitimate reason to go"?

Or can we now dispense with the guilty argument based on geography as well as the one based on his choice of name?

Ooh I forgot, it's the weekend and I should be cleaning the bog, knitting or baking.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Because i read and form my own opinion without feeling the need to join a fan club.

On the diary ive said that its overwhelmingly likely to be a forgery but im not 100 % convinced yet. Thats because it takes a lot to convince me of something; i dont just jump on a bandwagon and pick the suspect that i like the most then defend him as if my life depended on it. Unlike some.

Ive also said, on this thread, that CL cannot be completely dismissed. He was around. More research is required because theres nowhere near enough evidence to justify anything like the confidence thats being shown. If you wish to scream ‘burn the heritic’ just because id rather think for myself rather than follow the leader then thats up to you.

Ripperology needs a whole lot more scepticism and a lot less zealous over-confidence based on next to nothing. This is why we get books proposing Mann, Bachert et al.

Well said, HS.

Each argument, whether it concerns the diary [without which Maybrick would not have become a suspect in the first place] or a person provably at a murder scene after the event [but not before], has to be judged on its individual merits or lack thereof. I'm satisfied that the former is a fake of as yet unproven age and origin, but could it have been based on something its author knew about Maybrick that we don't? Who knows?

What I do find similar about the diary and Lechmere is, as I said before, the massive amount of confirmation bias on display to make the pieces fit and to plaster over the cracks. With the diary handwriting, if Anne Barrett wasn't and isn't ambidextrous; with the content, if the chameleon-like Mike Barrett picked up words and phrases like a sponge and was well known for using them in conversation and writing at every opportunity, but only since March 1992, when the thing emerged from the deep and took over his life like a demon; the Barrett theory wobbles and has to be thought through again, as it has done since the early days.

Same with the Lechmere theory, as we have seen on this thread, where it depends on filling in the unknowns and uncertainties about the man himself, his character and motivations, with speculation and preconception that fit with the desired conclusion. At least with the Barretts, one of them is still alive, and we know a lot more about them as individuals, on which to judge the likelihood of them being forgers. We know virtually nothing about Lechmere as an individual, on which to form a judgement about the man.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I don't see confirmation bias in the diary discussions, Caz, at least not the serious ones. Even if there were, it would pale into insignificance compared to the "Cross = Ripper" arguments advanced (regressed?) here.

[Abby Normal]

I don't see confirmation bias in the diary discussions, Caz, at least not the serious ones. Even if there were, it would pale into insignificance compared to the "Cross = Ripper" arguments advanced (regressed?) here.

You’ve got to be kidding.

[Abby Normal]

Well said, HS.

Each argument, whether it concerns the diary [without which Maybrick would not have become a suspect in the first place] or a person provably at a murder scene after the event [but not before], has to be judged on its individual merits or lack thereof. I'm satisfied that the former is a fake of as yet unproven age and origin, but could it have been based on something its author knew about Maybrick that we don't? Who knows?

What I do find similar about the diary and Lechmere is, as I said before, the massive amount of confirmation bias on display to make the pieces fit and to plaster over the cracks. With the diary handwriting, if Anne Barrett wasn't and isn't ambidextrous; with the content, if the chameleon-like Mike Barrett picked up words and phrases like a sponge and was well known for using them in conversation and writing at every opportunity, but only since March 1992, when the thing emerged from the deep and took over his life like a demon; the Barrett theory wobbles and has to be thought through again, as it has done since the early days.

Same with the Lechmere theory, as we have seen on this thread, where it depends on filling in the unknowns and uncertainties about the man himself, his character and motivations, with speculation and preconception that fit with the desired conclusion. At least with the Barretts, one of them is still alive, and we know a lot more about them as individuals, on which to judge the likelihood of them being forgers. We know virtually nothing about Lechmere as an individual, on which to form a judgement about the man.

Love,

Caz
X

On the contrary caz. It seems to be some of the more “Barretts couldn’t have done it” defenders have gotten way too close to the subjects and have such an invested interest in it that it has clouded their judgment beyond repair.

[Sam Flynn]

You’ve got to be kidding.

I'm really not, Abby.

[Kattrup]

On the contrary caz. It seems to be some of the more “Barretts couldn’t have done it” defenders have gotten way too close to the subjects and have such an invested interest in it that it has clouded their judgment beyond repair.

Exactly, Well said

[Abby Normal]

I'm really not, Abby.

The Barrett couldn’t have done it crowd is the worse example of confirmation bias I’ve ever seen. Probably brought on because they got too close, have too much invested in it, and have entrenched themselves so deeply that every possible twist and turn of the facts is put forth to argue against there opponents and hold tight. If friggen Vishnu came down from heaven they would come up with something else.

I also note that you made the comparison in reference to your own beliefs about lech, so I can’t help but think that might have something to do with it.

Don’t let your vehemence against fish and his theory cloud your judgement about other things sam.

[Sam Flynn]

The Barrett couldn’t have done it crowd is the worse example of confirmation bias I’ve ever seen.

Given that I was responding to Caz, I was defending the "Barretts could have done it" position against the accusation of confirmation bias.

I also note that you made the comparison in reference to your own beliefs about lech

It has nothing to do with my beliefs, it's what I see - namely, the stretching of evidence, sometimes to incredible lengths, in order to paint as sinister a picture as possible of what Cross said or did.

Don’t let your vehemence against fish and his theory cloud your judgement about other things sam.

I don't and I won't, Abby, you'll be pleased to hear.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The issue of course is that we are told the argument is that Mizen never says they are togeather, so maybe they are apart. That is a false argument.

The Real argument is that Mizen Never even suggests the pair are apart.

Without such the accounts of the two Carmen, Paul and Lechmere, that both spoke to Mizen remain intact, and thus the speculated possability is an impossibility.

Why is that so hard to acknowledge?


Steve

Because it doesnt fit with the mission plan.

Mizen also never mentioned the fact that CL and Paul were fully clothed but.....

I just dont understand how anyone can be confident that this man was Jack The Ripper.

[Abby Normal]

Given that I was responding to Caz, I was defending the "Barretts could have done it" position against the accusation of confirmation bias.It has nothing to do with my beliefs, it's what I see - namely, the stretching of evidence, sometimes to incredible lengths, in order to paint as sinister a picture as possible of what Cross said or did.I don't and I won't, Abby, you'll be pleased to hear.

Sorry if I misunderstood your statement “ I don’t see any confirmation bias in the diary discussions, caz”.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry if I misunderstood your statement “ I don’t see any confirmation bias in the diary discussions, caz”.

Caz was having a go at the "Barretts could have done it" camp, so I responded accordingly. I was not about to risk starting an off-topic diversion by suggesting that there was confirmation bias on the "Barretts couldn't have done it" side, so I kept my response deliberately general.

The important point I wanted to get across was that "Even if there were [conf bias in the diary threads], it would pale into insignificance compared to the 'Cross = Ripper' arguments advanced here". I should have just said that, I suppose.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As i was bored i thought id try and consider a few alternatives that CL might have considered instead of waiting around for Paul to arrive with all the risks that such a decision would have entailed for a guilty man. Just an exercise you understand.

As he heard Paul’s footsteps he could have sat down on the pavement next to Polly. When Paul arrived he could have pretened to be drunk by talking to Polly: “come on old girl lets go and find us a bed.” In the dark, with CL turned towards Polly and from the other side of the road Paul wouldnt have bothered hanging around and he wouldnt have been able to have identified CL. CL would then have waited a few minutes and then gone too work. The addition of an Irish accent for example would have helped throw the police of the scent.

Alternatively he could, as soon as he heard Paul’s footsteps he could have walked quietly away. He then turns round and comes running back out of breath. He then tells Paul that he came upon a man attacking Polly. He gave chase but the man got away.

Finally, he had a knife, he could have killed Paul and gone on to work.

Of all the options, which includes just walking away to safety as soon as he heard Paul, CL chose the most risky. If Paul had suggested finding a Constable he could hardly have said “forget that, im off!”

With the ‘plan’ that he decided on how could have been sure that he could have kept Paul away from Mizen? How could he have been sure that the Constable wouldn’t have insisted on hearing Paul’s version of events? How could he have been sure that they didnt walk straight into a constable as soon as they turned out of Buck’s Row? It wasnt police policy but how could CL have known that the Constable wouldnt have asked them to accompany him back to the scene (was CL or Paul expert on police procedure?)

CL wasnt ‘caught in the act’ as some like to imply. He stood in the middle of the road and waited. There is no doubt at all that he could have escaped safely. We can also be reasonably sure that this was his first or second murder so he was more likely to be more inclined to caution.

I dont for a minute think that Jack The Ripper would have hung around when he could haveescaped and then called someone over to view his handiwork an action that he would have known would have led to a meeting with the police.

Its simply unbelievable.

[Fisherman]

When we are reduced to typos its a sign of desperation.

And again back to front, there is absolutely nothing in Mizen's account which challenges the accounts of Lechmere or Paul, those two you ignore.
In real research one needs to prove factually that other evidence is faulty, its not an act of faith or beleif.

So again I am Right and you are very, very wrong.

Steve

No Steve, if you say that Paul MUST have been withing earshot - and you did just that - then you are not right.

And Mizens saying that "a man" came up to him and talked is not in line with the suggestion that TWO men did, no matter who you twist and turn.