One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[DJA]

Maybrick would have been fifty in 1888. Is there another example in world criminological history of a serial killer beginning their life as a multiple murderer at such an age?

Jack the Ripper was 53.

[drstrange169]

Does anybody know when Barrett is supossed to have submitted articles for "Look In"? I have access to a pile of late 1980's issues.

At a quick glance the only "articles" appear to be interviews with minor pop stars.

[John G]

I don't know of one.

Maybe it was a one-off instance.

Ah that must be it!

[Kaz]

And Danaher wasn't a serialist was he????

No, but he had a long list of potential victims. Who knows what he would have done if he hadn't got caught? Not the best example I admit, just one I had raised earlier so had him in mind.

Theres every possibility James didn't start at 50, read Jack the Ripper: The American Connection.

[Sam Flynn]

Does anybody know when Barrett is supossed to have submitted articles for "Look In"? I have access to a pile of late 1980's issues.

For those unfamiliar with Look-In, there's a full edition from 1983 that's been digitised here:

https://archive.org/details/009LookInIssue81983TheFallGuy

Bit of a nostalgia trip for me. I wasn't a subscriber, but I did buy it from time to time.

At a quick glance the only "articles" appear to be interviews with minor pop stars.

Given the delight in cryptic clues and word-play throughout the diary, perhaps the crosswords might be an interesting place to look!

[Henry Flower]

No, but he had a long list of potential victims. Who knows what he would have done if he hadn't got caught? Not the best example I admit, just one I had raised earlier so had him in mind.

Theres every possibility James didn't start at 50, read Jack the Ripper: The American Connection.

Oh sure. He was hacking up women in Texas previously. He just forgot to mention that in his diary. His diary, which presents us with quite a build-up to his first murder, as though he is breaking new ground.

But hey, maybe psychopaths forget things like multiple previous murders.

[Kaz]

Oh sure. He was hacking up women in Texas previously. He just forgot to mention that in his diary. His diary, which presents us with quite a build-up to his first murder, as though he is breaking new ground.

But hey, maybe psychopaths forget things like multiple previous murders.

Have you read Shirley's book?

I can send you a copy if you like?

[Henry Flower]

Have you read Shirley's book?

I can send you a copy if you like?

Thanks Kaz, that's one that I did read. I must say I felt rather cheated as I felt that when you cut out the waffle it actually added very little to the original Diary publication.

There really wasn't much evidence of an American connection after all, was there? I read it hoping for more and came away thinking, "was that it?!"

Still, Ripper authors are always wise to tap into an American connection if they can, the American market laps that stuff up, it's money for old rope really.

[Henry Flower]

I didn't mean that to sound like an attack on Shirley Harrison btw. I rather like her. I don't think she's right, but that's not a problem, she seems like a decent and likeable person.

[Kaz]

Thanks Kaz, that's one that I did read. I must say I felt rather cheated as I felt that when you cut out the waffle it actually added very little to the original Diary publication.

There really wasn't much evidence of an American connection after all, was there? I read it hoping for more and came away thinking, "was that it?!"

Still, Ripper authors are always wise to tap into an American connection if they can, the American market laps that stuff up, it's money for old rope really.

I thought it was more great detective work by Shirley. But I was left feeling alittle cheated...

it doesn't tie in with the Diary very well either. its something else I'm left on the fence with ..

[Henry Flower]

Jack the Ripper was 53.

Yes, but when?

In 1888?

Or.... eventually?

[Iconoclast]

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?

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

[John G]

Statistics? Considering the problem of inductive reasoning then, ultimately, it's all a matter of faith: https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/pu...induction.html

[Sam Flynn]

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".

[Iconoclast]

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.