Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Yabs View Post

    Of course, I agree.
    The odds of ten heads being spun in a row is just as likely or unlikely as any other combination of head and tails.
    Absolutely, Yabs. But that's not 50-50, obviously!
    Iconoclast

    Comment


    • On another note.
      I’m currently reading Jack The ripper 100 years of mystery published in 1987.
      I had to giggle when I read the passage below. I bet the author couldn’t believe his luck a few years later when someone more or less helped his dream come true.

      “I live in hope that as the remaining slums of Whitechapel and Spitalfields are finally cleared, some hidden documentary evidence of the identity of Jack the Ripper will be found wedged behind a rafter. Or it may well be that, deposited with a solicitor or at a bank somewhere, there is a dusty tin box marked ‘Not to be opened for one hundred years’ and which contains a complete and evidential confession”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
        On another note.
        I’m currently reading Jack The ripper 100 years of mystery published in 1987.
        I had to giggle when I read the passage below. I bet the author couldn’t believe his luck a few years later when someone more or less helped his dream come true.

        “I live in hope that as the remaining slums of Whitechapel and Spitalfields are finally cleared, some hidden documentary evidence of the identity of Jack the Ripper will be found wedged behind a rafter. Or it may well be that, deposited with a solicitor or at a bank somewhere, there is a dusty tin box marked ‘Not to be opened for one hundred years’ and which contains a complete and evidential confession”
        Yes, often seen as a prompt for an en early 1990s hoaxer, this intriguing quotation from Underwood was also used as the opening epigram of Linder, Morris, and Skinner's excellent Inside Story back in the early 2000s.
        Iconoclast

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
          Of course, I agree.
          The odds of ten heads being spun in a row is just as likely or unlikely as any other combination of head and tails.
          Absolutely, Yabs. But that's not 50-50, obviously!

          Ten heads spun in a row is a named sequence, Yabs, which I assumed you were referring to?

          So that's obviously H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H

          I assumed when I first responded that your 'any other combination of head and tails' were also named sequences? For example:

          T, H, T, T, T, H, T, H, H, T

          Both of these - if they are named sequences - share the exact same odds of happening by chance, it is true (obviously, it is 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.0009765 or 1/1,024).

          But this is not the same as the odds of throwing a coin ten times and getting, say, five heads and 5 tails in any order. If the order in which they come out is not being stated then you are not looking for a named sequence therefore the odds shrink dramatically. This is obviously because there are many sequences which will produce five heads and five tails but only one sequence that can produce the named sequence you are looking for.

          Therefore, the odds of getting a named sequence of ten coin tosses is always 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 (1/1,024) regardless of which sequence you are seeking to throw (which is what I thought we were talking about last evening).

          The odds of getting any sequence which ends up with five heads and five tails in total is, in sharp contrast just 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.03125 or 1/32.

          With your named sequence, you'd need to throw your 10 dice 1,024 times if you were hoping to get H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H by chance alone.

          Similarly, if your named sequence was, say, H, T, H, T, T, T, H, T, H, H, you'd also need to throw your 10 dice 1,024 times if you were hoping to get that specific sequence by chance alone

          With your any sequence scenario, you can discard the probability of any five of your throws because five of them will definitely produce a heads or a tails (and the order in which those five throws appears amongst your ten throws is irrelevant) so the odds shrink way down to just 1/32 (as described above).

          So, you'd need to throw ten dice just 32 times to expect to get five heads and five tails by chance alone. A much better chance than ten consecutive heads or tails, I'm sure you'd agree!

          Right, just off out with the dogs so I'll not be able to edit this, sadly, if I've put in any typos or errors of calculation.

          Cheers,

          ​​​​​​​Ike



          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
            Doesn't matter if your lowest and highest frequencies are the same, by the way. So, if you tossed a coin eight times and got four heads and four tails, the probability of doing so is (and I'll add back in the 1s this time but remember they do not change the final outcome):
            1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.03125 (1/32)
            Just checking back on my stats (because it's perfectly likely someone else will and trump any errors as proof of my inability to understand statistics).

            I've, sadly, never been any good at maths, and the example above is as good as any: I went one 0.5 too far - the probability is actually 0.0625 (or 1/16). You have to remember to multiple 0.5 by 0.5 three times in this example not four which is where I made my error when using my old Jumbo calculator.



            Cheers,

            Ike
            Last edited by Iconoclast; 07-11-2021, 08:45 AM.
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • I'm desperately hoping - as you all will also dear readers - that this can be my last clarification of the 1/37,557 odds (or the circa 1/26,000 odds if you exclude weekends and Bank Holidays, though at these low levels of probability it absolutely doesn't matter - you are welcome to choose which vanishingly-small probability you prefer to work with).

              Remember, we are calculating the probability of two things happening by chance alone (the lifting of Maybrick's floorboards in his study and someone seeking a literary agent for a Jack the Ripper scrapbook purporting to be written by James Maybrick) happening on the same day for the very first time (on the record) on March 9, 1992 and the only assumption that we are making is that we can safely start on May 12, 1889 (because it is rather obvious that either or both events could have happened on May 12, 1889 and every day thereafter until March 9, 1992, when they cunningly contrived to happen on the SAME day for the first time).

              If you wish to argue - as RJ's manicurist advised him to argue - that you can't start at May 12, 1889, all you need to do is work backwards from March 9, 1992 to take his argument to its logical extreme. Excluding weekends and Bank Holidays (I hope), could either or both have happened on March 6, 1992? The answer is obviously Yes. Of course they could. The fact that history tells us they didn't was completely irrelevant on March 6, 1992. Could either or both have happened on October 16, 1972? The answer is obviously Yes. Of course they could. The fact that history tells us they didn't was completely irrelevant on October 16, 1972. Could either or both have happened on April 23, 1903? The answer is obviously Yes. Of course they could. The fact that history tells us they didn't was completely irrelevant on April 23, 1903. And - therefore - could either or both have happened on May 12, 1889? The answer is obviously Yes. Of course they could. The fact that history tells us they didn't was completely irrelevant on May 12, 1889.

              By taking RJ's argument to the logical extreme, we can show that what is true of March 6, 1992, October 16, 1972, and April 23, 1903 must by necessity be true of May 12, 1889. If you can't understand this, you will not understand how astonishingly-unlikely it was that the two events finally did happen, and both on March 9, 1992, some 37,557 days after the first could have occurred (either separately or together). RJ's theory (that I am wrong) requires you to argue that you cannot go back to May 12, 1889. And why not? Well, that's where he has to chuck in a host of spurious factors which have no bearing on the calculation of the probability that JAMES MAYBRICK's study floorboards would DEFINITELY be raised by SOMEONE (anyone) on the SAME DAY that SOMEONE ELSE (anyone else) approached a literary agent regarding a mooted diary of Jack the Ripper purportedly written by JAMES MAYBRICK.

              So two events which we know happened on the same day, both Maybrick-related, relative to the first day this could have happened which I am giving as May 12, 1889. No need for obfuscation with talk of missing assumptions or unknown facts. You can go back to May 3, 1889 if you wish (it would make the March 9, 1992 'coincidence' slightly more implausible each time if you do), but you obviously have to stop at May 3, 1889 (unless you decide to factor in the possibility that Maybrick did indeed write the scrapbook and got confused which day it was when he made his final entry - something I don't see any point in attempting to factor in - and, again, it could only make the March 9, 1992 'coincidence' slightly more implausible if you do).

              So any day from May 12, 1889, either or both of the two events which finally did occur on March 9, 1992 could have occurred. In this calculation there is no room for any other details of the case. So - in this calculation - you must forget all about Mike Barrett, Anfield, Portus & Rhodes, The Saddle Inn, Tony D. being dead, et cetera. In this calculation, we are only working out the probability of two things happening by chance alone (the lifting of James Maybrick's floorboards in his study and someone seeking a literary agent for a Jack the Ripper scrapbook purporting to be written by James Maybrick) happening on the same day for the very first time (on the record) on March 9, 1992 and the only assumption that we are making is that we can safely start on May 12, 1889.

              If anyone else wishes to factor in other details - for example, Mike Barrett, Anfield, Portus & Rhodes, The Saddle Inn, Tony D. being dead, et cetera - then, of course they are welcome to do so but we just need to recognise immediately that they would be performing a different statistical analysis. We can all do that. We can all say, "Hey, your calculation fails to factor in the fact that no-one definitely saw the Maybrick scrapbook before April 13, 1992", or "Hey, we don't know when or even if the floorboards were raised in Maybrick's bedroom", but - if we do that - we are simply changing the calculation so that we would be performing a different statistical analysis.

              It's a free world. Everyone can do the probability calculation which they honestly believe to be the correct one. If they do, then their integrity cannot be questioned.

              This, of course, is not also true of every conclusion drawn ...

              Trust your Uncle Ike, dear readers. His maths might be a bit iffy, but his understanding of statistics is impeccable.

              Impeccable Uncle Ike
              Last edited by Iconoclast; 07-11-2021, 09:28 AM.
              Iconoclast

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                Yes, often seen as a prompt for an en early 1990s hoaxer, this intriguing quotation from Underwood was also used as the opening epigram of Linder, Morris, and Skinner's excellent Inside Story back in the early 2000s.
                Thank you, Ike. I wasn’t aware of that.
                I’ll seek out a copy and give it a read.

                EDIT: one copy available on Amazon for 82.40
                maybe I won’t
                Last edited by Yabs; 07-11-2021, 09:35 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Yabs View Post

                  Thank you, Ike. I wasn’t aware of that.
                  I’ll seek out a copy and give it a read.

                  EDIT: one copy available on Amazon for 82.40
                  maybe I won’t
                  I've sent you a PM, Yabs, with a much cheaper version.

                  Cheers,

                  Ike
                  Iconoclast

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                    I've sent you a PM, Yabs, with a much cheaper version.

                    Cheers,

                    Ike
                    Yes that’s definitely more my range.
                    thank you Ike, much appreciated.

                    Comment


                    • A quick question…
                      Am I right in thinking that in 1888 the building we know as Battlecrease was two dwellings for two separate households or was it just Maybrick’s part of the building that was known as Battlecrease?
                      Or was it not two dwellings and the Maybrick family occupied the whole detached building?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
                        A quick question…
                        Am I right in thinking that in 1888 the building we know as Battlecrease was two dwellings for two separate households or was it just Maybrick’s part of the building that was known as Battlecrease?
                        Or was it not two dwellings and the Maybrick family occupied the whole detached building?
                        As I recall, the house was split in two in 1888 and possibly still is to this day (not sure about that).

                        I think the other half in 1888 was a solicitor called possibly 'Williams' and his family. Not absolutely sure about that either but pretty certain it was two homes in 1888.

                        I believe that the Maybricks created the name 'Battlecrease' when they first rented the house so it would only have applied to their side, I assume.

                        Cheers,

                        Ike
                        Iconoclast

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                          As I recall, the house was split in two in 1888 and possibly still is to this day (not sure about that).

                          I think the other half in 1888 was a solicitor called possibly 'Williams' and his family. Not absolutely sure about that either but pretty certain it was two homes in 1888.

                          I believe that the Maybricks created the name 'Battlecrease' when they first rented the house so it would only have applied to their side, I assume.

                          Cheers,

                          Ike
                          Cheers Ike.
                          I only ask because I read on here a while back (at least I think it was here)
                          that a notice about a missing or dead family dog from Battlecrease had been put in the papers in 1888 and the assumption was that it was the Maybrick family pooch that had died or gone missing.
                          Having read this article I’m beginning to think that the dog in question was his direct neighbours and the article suggests that maybe Maybrick was the culprit.
                          Click image for larger version  Name:	6CC43DA8-0466-499D-8BE3-307A2859CB13.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	101.8 KB ID:	762253
                          Last edited by Yabs; 07-11-2021, 10:41 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Yabs View Post

                            Cheers Ike.
                            I only ask because I read on here a while back (at least I think it was here)
                            that a notice about a missing or dead family dog from Battlecrease had been put in the papers in 1888 and the assumption was that it was the Maybrick family pooch that had died or gone missing.
                            Having read this article I’m beginning to think that the dog in question was his direct neighbours and the article suggests that maybe Maybrick was the culprit.
                            Click image for larger version Name:	6CC43DA8-0466-499D-8BE3-307A2859CB13.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	101.8 KB ID:	762253
                            Nice find. Killing cats and dogs is definitely a red flag when looking at serial killers. Not all of them engage in animal cruelty, but the lack of empathy for animals is the same as lack of empathy for humans. They only seemingly value human life more than animals as it is the socially and morally construct thing to do so.

                            If the dog was genuinely vexing him, he would not think twice about killing it.
                            Last edited by erobitha; 07-11-2021, 10:47 AM.
                            "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                            - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                              Nice find. Killing cats and dogs is definitely a red flag when looking at serial killers. Not all of them engage in animal cruelty, but the lack of empathy for animals is the same as lack of empathy for humans. They only seemingly value human life more than animals as it is the socially and morally construct thing to do so.

                              If the dog was genuinely vexing him, he would not think twice about killing it.
                              Hi Erobitha.
                              A definite red flag, I’m a 95% believer in the diary being a modern hoax, but it wouldn’t be fair if when I found something that seems to incriminate Maybrick I didn’t post it.

                              On the flip-side I guess you could say that if he was the multiple dog killer and their barking did cause him vexation throughout 1988, it would be odd for that not to appear in his journal.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Yabs View Post

                                Hi Erobitha.
                                A definite red flag, I’m a 95% believer in the diary being a modern hoax, but it wouldn’t be fair if when I found something that seems to incriminate Maybrick I didn’t post it.
                                Excellent point, Yabs. Well done on showing-up when the facts may not necessarily concur with your beliefs.

                                On the flip-side I guess you could say that if he was the multiple dog killer and their barking did cause him vexation throughout 1988, it would be odd for that not to appear in his journal.
                                You could indeed, though there is an awful lot that is known about Jack and other things we know about Maybrick which also don't appear in the diary. I agree, you'd expect far more trivia in there, but it's not and we can't in all conscience infer that that means the diary is a hoax even if it jolly well feels strongly like it must therefore be.

                                All good thinking, though.
                                Iconoclast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X