One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Scott, you know what I’m thinking?

I’m thinking that you think that the odds of anything happening are always 50-50 - that is, they either happened or they didn’t happen. They will either happen or they won’t happen. Is that what you were meaning? So the ‘coincidence’ of March 9, 1992 was either going to happen or wasn’t going to happen? Or would happen by chance or would not happen by chance? Therefore the odds were no better than tossing a coin?

If it is, then how do explain that it’s never night at 3pm in my village? At 3pm in the afternoon in my village, it’s either going to be night or it’s not going to be night, so that’s a 50-50 chance as you appear to be describing probability.And yet it’s never once been night at 3pm in my village in all the years we’ve been there.

What’s the chances of that, I wonder?

Clearly, everyone will say that you can’t have night during the afternoon, right? And yet if everything is just a 50-50 chance, then in your world it can be even though it never has been.

Come on, put us out of our misery. What on earth were you meaning?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Obviously I was also writing with tongue firmly in cheek, but I genuinely do not understand which example you were referring to which was either a straight 50-50 probability (where someone on the planet hadn’t already realised that) or else could not (for some reason) be subjected to probability analysis.

I hope to wake up to the answer!

[Iconoclast]

Thank you, Ike. The odds part was tongue-in-cheek, as it's impossible to calculate odds on anything like this, as I tried to exemplify earlier.

So, another day begins …

Of course, you can’t calculate absolute probability of such a multifactorial set of potential events although I suspect Mr Hamm would build an experimental model which included a number of assessable qualities, establish his base hypothesis (primary objectives), run the resulting numbers through a relevant statistical test, and then infer from the data whether or not his hypothesis had been supported or not (obviously with one eye on the remaining possibility that chance was at it all along).

But that game’s too rich for us! The great news is that what we know (Maybrick dying, floorboards coming up for the first time, Barrett contacting Rupert Crew) falls under the auspices of the much more valuable quality fact. With facts, we have a much better chance of using simple probability theory to calculate highly-specific odds, and all on our fingers (if we come from Sunderland and therefore have enough of them). Wonderful!

On a related tack, I rather prefer your (and RJ’s) scenario whereby it is the lifting of the floorboards which finally prompts Mike to act on March 9, 1992. This Blue Peteresque “Here’s one we made earlier” version of events is far more credible than Lord O’s crazy eleven-day gamble of hoping for a suitable document to come up at the only auction also coming-up and then the frantic race to transcribe the PC version onto the lo-and-behold scrapbook which lo’d and beholded at O&L on March 31, 1992. As is often the case, Lord O’s theories are too left-field for the sane mind, but - if we are to insist the scrapbook is a hoax - the pre-baked, ready-in-a-minute, microwaveable one is at least vaguely believable.

Obviously, I don’t fancy it. Not for a microwaveable minute, but others might prefer it. You could be on to a marketing winner there, Scott …

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Hi Dear Readers,

I have tried valiantly to locate Lord Orsam's original work of statistical genius on his website for those of you who wanted to check what he actually argued, but after a lot of clicking on various articles, I had to give up, so here's a link to his website itself and - if you're interested - the fun can start from there ...

Home - Orsam Books

I assume it comes under the 'Articles' section, but - Lord - there's too many articles and too many links for me on a scorching Saturday evening.

Cheers,

Ike

Here it is:

MaybrickTheFalseFacts - Orsam Books

I am desperate to quote the first paragraph because it is statistical nonsense of the highest order but I'm not permitted to.

Cheers,

Ike

[Abby Normal]

It is 100% probability youre all nuts

[Scott Nelson]

The coin toss example was just to see if people understood simple numerical probability -- two faces, heads and tails-- always a 50/50 chance of coming up either, no matter how many times the coin is tossed. Apparently not too many people did. And when you consider historical probabilities based on assumptions, subject to short-comings, false leads and unknowns, calculating probable scenarios is always going to be arbitrary.

[Iconoclast]

The coin toss example was just to see if people understood simple numerical probability -- two faces, heads and tails-- always a 50/50 chance of coming up either, no matter how many times the coin is tossed.

Yep, doesn't get much simpler than the odds of tossing a coin always being 50-50.

Apparently not too many people did.

I think you must have received a swedge of private messages and forgot to tell the rest of us because I don't recall any confusion on the thread itself? Granted, Yabs sounded a bit unsure, but a large part of me suspected he was being a very naughty boy.

And when you consider historical probabilities based on assumptions, subject to short-comings, false leads and unknowns, calculating probable scenarios is always going to be arbitrary.

This may be true, but the scenario we were discussing was based upon three simple and well-established facts (the date of Maybrick's death, the number of times his study floorboards had been raised on the record, and the date of Barrett's first call to Rupert Crew). There was (and is) absolutely nothing arbitrary about retrospectively calculating the deeply-implausible odds of the latter two events occurring on the same day, 37,557 after the former. But I think this is the key bit. I only recall assumptions being chucked-in as a sideshow to distract from the central theme which is of course fundamentally catastrophic for those who believe the scrapbook is a hoax.

Personally, the cacophony of irrelevant assumptions or claims that assumptions were being made simply re-confirmed for me how desperate certain posters are to do any argument to death if it even vaguely works in favour of James Maybrick being the Whitechapel fiend.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Anyway, as I say, it's not really something I care to discuss as if it's debatable because it's not.

Well said, Jeff.

And although I won't be engaging further in a "debate that is not debatable," it would have been ungentlemanly not to thank you for stopping in to clear the air, and for offering some much-needed clarity about the pitfalls of statistical analysis.

For as you write:

this one does not work the way it feels like it should. Statistics are shockingly counter-intuitive sometimes.

Indeed. Unfortunately, even a lecturer on the subject can only 'lead a horse to water'; he can't make him drink (or think!)

See you on the other threads...

Cheers, RJP


P.S. The last entry (and the only dated entry) in the Maybrick hoax dates to 3 May 1889 (not 6 May, as mistakenly stated earlier). This, of course, is neither here there, since the odds of humans developing human 'stories' cannot be calculated with statistics, particularly when there's a wealthy film producer tossing money around Liverpool during an economic downturn. (Some people will say anything to get on film, which was Feldman's own solution to the double-event 'coincidence'). Still, seeing that "Maybrick of the diary" had the amazing foresight to anticipate his own death by 8 days, setting down his pen and closing his Edwardian scrapbook for the final time on that imaginary date, Ike should perhaps considering recalculating his entirely imaginary odds a fourth time. Why cheat oneself out of an imaginary 8 days when calculating bogus odds?

[Iconoclast]

Well said, Jeff.

And although I won't be engaging further in a "debate that is not debatable," it would have been ungentlemanly not to thank you for stopping in to clear the air, and for offering some much-needed clarity about the pitfalls of statistical analysis.

I am happy to thank Jeff for his contribution, but he most certainly has not 'cleared the air'. He has only 'cleared the air' in your mind because you've managed to squeeze a soundbite out of his post which you feel nails the debate. That's up to you, of course, but every reader will have their own take on whether they feel Jeff's response put paid to the issue.

P.S. The last entry (and the only dated entry) in the Maybrick hoax dates to 3 May 1889 (not 6 May, as mistakenly stated earlier).

Yes, it was noted that you erred but there is no gain to be made by cheap pedantry so I let it pass.

This, of course, is neither here there, since the odds of humans developing human 'stories' cannot be calculated with statistics, particularly when there's a wealthy film producer tossing money around Liverpool during an economic downturn. (Some people will say anything to get on film, which was Feldman's own solution to the double-event 'coincidence'). Still, seeing that "Maybrick of the diary" had the amazing foresight to anticipate his own death by 8 days, setting down his pen and closing his Edwardian scrapbook for the final time on that imaginary date, Ike should perhaps considering recalculating his entirely imaginary odds a fourth time. Why cheat oneself out of an imaginary 8 days when calculating bogus odds?

Your tunnel-vision is impossible to debate with, and impossible to influence. I imagine you would say the same of me, but I'm open to a proper discussion about the statistical probability that I have highlighted, and all I have got back from you are desperate attempts to deflect and obfuscate. In your heart, you know that Jeff's response was very general, and lacked any specificity around the actual odds we were talking about, but you were so desperate for a smug retort and soundbite that you have clung to what little you could infer as 'damning' and presented that as a case against. Nothing could be further from the truth, and deep down you know it. Deep down, everyone knows it. Including Jeff.

We could do this as an even simpler prima facie perspective: to each of our readers, you knew in 1993 that Mike Barrett had contact Rupert Crew on March 9, 1992. For twenty years, you knew little or nothing about the floorboards in Maybrick's study being raised, but in the late 2010s, you finally became aware that his floorboards in his study had been lifted for the first time on the record after ONE HUNDRED AND THREE YEARS on the very morning that Barrett contacted Rupert Crew. If this doesn't surprise you, nothing ever will. If it does surprise you, you are right to be surprised. Or indeed amazed.

Here's a thought experiment for you: if it transpired that someone contacted a literary agent on October 16, 1938 with Robert Louis Stephenson's confession to the Whitechapel crimes and it was brought to the world's attention by a man living in Edinburgh and subsequently published, and then today someone uncovered that the floorboards had been lifted in his Edinburgh study for the first time since he died on that very same day (October 16, 1938), would you not stop for a moment and wonder if the two things were not rather obviously related? And then how would you have reacted if it turned out that a member of the team working on the floorboards and the guy who contacted the literary agent both lived in Dalkeith (nine miles away) and their local pub was The Harrow? What would your reaction be? "Oh, that sort of stuff is bound to happen from time to time" or "That's so unlikely, it can't have been a coincidence"?

Well, DOUBLE the available time that had passed and that actually happened with James Maybrick. The floorboards were lifted in the morning. A guy from LIVERPOOL contacted the literary agent. He could have been living anywhere in the world, but he actually lived in a very specific place in Liverpool. The guy from Liverpool drank in the same pub as a member of the electrical team working on Maybrick's floorboards eight miles away. So what was your reaction given that you know it actually happened? "Oh, that sort of stuff is bound to happen from time to time" or "That's so unlikely, it can't have been a coincidence"?

Honestly, this doesn't even need probability theory for honest people to recognise how utterly unlikely these events would be if they were caused by mere chance alone.

You can eat up your soundbite and irrelevance allowance as much as you want, RJ and you can lead this horse to water (or pretend that others have) but I don't trust that you haven't been poisoning the well so - despite the unbearable heat - I'll take a raincheck on that drink, thank you ...

Ike

[caz]

Hello Ike,

What amuses me is that both RJ and Orsam have attempted to get rid of what they argue is not that much of a coincidence, by having Mike and Eddie both at the pub before 9th March, where Eddie talks about the work planned for that day.

There is no more evidence for any of this, of course, than there is for the end of March auction theory.

But who needs evidence, old or new, when one has lost the ability or the will to question one's own beliefs?

It's a bit like trying to argue against God's existence with a religious person. Evidence is not required or desired, and arguments will have zero effect. It usually takes some monumental event in one's life to effect a change of mind like that.

In the lead up to Brexit, a chap called a radio station to say how he had always been a remainer and had believed it would be a total disaster if we were to leave the EU. But then a monumental event in his life caused him to change his mind overnight. Asked what this event was, he said he had been kicked in the head by a horse.

I stay away from horses these days. Only a serious kicking from a dumb beast could make me believe in any of Mike's forgery claims.
Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well at least we both agree there is nuance to opinions as there is to the whole provenance discussion. You and I would agree on most things but we don’t align 100% and that’s okay. I recently had a debate with Caz regarding Israel Schwartz - that is okay too. We can’t all think the same and nor should we.

There are more mysteries to unravel with the Maybrick case and constantly seems to throw up more questions or coincidences than answers. Despite the best effort of the likes of RJ and LO, it still keeps on living when by all rights as a hoax, it should have been long debunked by now.

But yet almost thirty years on and it still divides.

Nice post, ero.

I was only thinking this morning that it was last July when we celebrated LOBSTER Day. So in 2020 Lord O was still spending time and effort on trying to kill off the diary once and for all [while avoiding the watch, natch], nearly 30 years after the handwriting was found not to match Maybrick's; 25 years after Mike swore his affidavit, detailing why, how and when he and his wife had written it; and some 15 years after Mike's incriminating advert came to light, requesting a Victorian diary on or about 9th March 1992.

One can only assume even the Great Lord wasn't entirely convinced that the handwriting, coupled with Mike Barrett's behaviour, had reached the standard of proof required for a modern Barrett-inspired hoax.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Hello Ike,
What amuses me is that both RJ and Orsam have attempted to get rid of what they argue is not that much of a coincidence, by having Mike and Eddie both at the pub before 9th March, where Eddie talks about the work planned for that day.

There is no more evidence for any of this, of course, than there is for the end of March auction theory.

But who needs evidence, old or new, when one has lost the ability or the will to question one's own beliefs?

Hi Caz,

Yes, it is exactly like debating with someone of faith. The mere fact that they explain away their beliefs despite the lack of evidence with the usual "That's where my faith comes in" and they say it so smugly and sanctimoniously as if that was a good thing that you know you're onto a losing game.

With RJ and The Evil Vengeful Lord (back to theology, I see!), I don't believe their beliefs have reached the fever pitch of religious faith, but I do believe that - for some reason - they have acquired a single-minded, immutable fixation with the hoax theory. Now, I don't mind anyone leaning heavily towards the hoax theory, after all the document is seriously, superficially dodgy (as I argue brilliantly in my brilliant Society's Pillar), but I am deeply uncomfortable with the inability to stop and reflect on the possible based upon whatever evidence we have available to us.

I also object to everyone who defends a diary position as being inherently Maybrickian. On this site, I reckon that's in reality me and ero b (really, someone should write a song called that), but it's not - for example - you, and yet you are assailed with accusations of it.

Where you and me and ero b (come on, I'm handing you all a Number 1 smash hit on a plate here!) align is that we can see no argument ever favouring a Michael Barrett-related hoax. Where we differ (as I understand it, which I probably don't properly) is that you believe there was some other hoaxer, and ero b and I have simply gone one hoaxer further in our dismissal of the notion.

The key is a willingness to accept the possibility that we may be wrong ...

Ike
Iconoclast Extraordinaire
Breaker of Images
Not Scared of God or Monsters Under the Bed
Happy to Burn in Hell for Eternity (as Long as There's No Tomatoes)
Couldn't Give a ****

[caz]

In some quarters the Flat Earth debate rages on. All you are observing is that denial is a powerful emotion.

The Maybrick Hoax was ruled a fraud in a court of law nearly 3 decades ago, when the Sunday Times was released from its non-disclosure agreement on the principle that the public was about to be scammed. Reputable historians of the case have since ignored it.

I can’t speak for Lord Orsam, but the only reason I keep debating is because I feel fraud should be resisted, and people who run interference for frauds deserve pushback.

Maybe a better strategy is to merely deprive the debate of oxygen.

Whose oxygen? Not yours, RJ. I've lost count of how many times you have threatened or promised to deprive the debate of your scintillating company. Yet you still can't tear yourself away, in case something is posted that smacks of a potentially successful appeal against your belief that a court of law had ruled that the diary's publication would be fraudulent - then let the publication go ahead anyway. No, we don't ban books for being 'nonsensical', but you started with it being ruled a 'fraud'. Nice try, but did you expect nobody to notice what you did there?

Scotland Yard, if you recall, later failed to find the evidence required to prosecute anyone for fraud, which didn't bode well considering the limited number of potential fraudsters. I'm sure you and Lord O could have wrapped it up between you in no time, given ten minutes with the Barretts and another ten with Robert Smith. You may have needed the thumb screws and the nasty attitude [not least to get Mike to give you the bloody date you needed for that auction], but both come cheap.

[rjpalmer]

Hello Ike,

What amuses me is that both RJ and Orsam have attempted to get rid of what they argue is not that much of a coincidence, by having Mike and Eddie both at the pub before 9th March, where Eddie talks about the work planned for that day.

This is too unhinged and disingenuous to allow to pass without comment. It is also a perfect example of why one should never engage with Maybricknicks.


Imagine, Dear Readers, being so muddled and insecure about one’s own silly past beliefs that it becomes necessary to periodically DENY those beliefs when they are shown to have been deeply flawed, and then turn around and even have the gall to project those beliefs onto one’s perceived enemies. That is the behavior of a true fanatic.

Despite the above claims, Lord Orsam never suggested that Eddy and Mike knew each other prior to 9 March. Quite the contrary! And you should have known this, Caz, because he made this perfectly clear when addressing one of your many attempts to imply that Mike and Eddy DID know each other prior to 9 March! Don’t you ever tire of these games?

From the ‘Acquiring’ thread, post #51, David Orsam writing:

“One thing I would say RP is that one always has to be careful of sleight of hand in posts by some people in here. There is nothing remarkable about Mike and Eddie Lyons knowing each other in June 1993 and Eddie sitting with Mike and Robert Smith in the Saddle at that time. This is because, as Feldman, tells us, Mike had already confronted Eddie Lyons at his home about his claim that he had taken the diary from Battlecrease "in 1989". In June 1993 it had actually been arranged by Mike that Lyons would be in the Saddle in order to meet Robert Smith so there was nothing odd about Lyons sitting down with them.

The question is how Mike knew where Eddie Lyons lived when Feldman told him that he had claimed to have found the Diary. Well, according to Robert Smith, Feldman did not mention Lyons’ name to Mike when he told him what the electrician was claiming (“no name was given” he says). But Feldman himself does not say this in his book. He merely says that “Within twenty-four hours, Mike Barrett had knocked on the door of the said electrician; he accused him of lying and told him he would never do a deal.” Given that Feldman expresses no surprise whatsoever that Mike knew that Lyons was the electrician he was referring to, it seems pretty obvious to me that Feldman must have given him Lyons’ name. That being so, Mike could have made enquiries and tracked him down to his home.

And that being so, the meeting in June 1993 is wholly unremarkable.

It should be noted that in early 1993, Feldman asked all of the Portus & Rhodes electricians he spoke to if they drank at the Saddle. It turned out that one of them did: an electrician who lived close to the Saddle (i.e. Eddie Lyons). For me, it is not especially remarkable that one of the nine Liverpool Portus & Rhodes electricians drank at a particular pub in Liverpool. We need to keep very strongly in mind that it might well have been the fact that Lyons drank in the Saddle which led to him becoming the prime suspect who was supposed to have discovered the diary…

If, as I suspect, Feldman named Lyons to Mike this could explain how Mike came to know Lyons.”


* * *

Except to the terminally dense, it is obvious that ‘Lord Orsam’ does not believe Mike & Eddie knew each other until Feldman alerted Barrett to Eddie’s existence—well AFTER March 1992. He was pointing out there was NO EVIDENCE that the two men had known each other previously.


But who HAS suggested—repeatedly—that Mike & Eddie knew each other prior to 9 March 1992?

Yes, dear readers, you will have guessed it by now: ‘Caz’ Brown:

This, for instance, is from the ’25 Years/Robert Smith’ thread, which I just happened to be reading last Friday.

(Caz is here addressing ‘Sam Flynn,’ who, like all sensible people, found it hard-to-swallow the alleged series of events of 9 March 1992).



For Ike, and others who are easily confused:

Y is Mike Barrett

X is Eddie Lyons

So, Caz, how does Eddie Lyons “figure (Mike) will be interested” in the Diary of Jack the Ripper if Eddie doesn’t even know Mike Barrett from a Drunken Baker??

My how times change—and so desperately. But why not just cloud the issue by projecting this belief onto 'Orsam,' when it was, in fact, your own?

You see, Dear Readers, based on a largely facetious comment I made on this thread, Caz is reduced to backpedaling furiously, implying that only a fool would believe such a thing “WITHOUT EVIDENCE,” without acknowledging that for several years this was her own belief!!

This is the muddled mess of the Battlecrease provenance, and the mire its advocates constantly find themselves wallowing in. At one moment Eddie rushes to the Saddle to sell an ‘old book’ to his good friend & acquaintance Mike Barrett, the pub’s resident journalist; at another time (when the argument needs a new set of alternative ‘facts’), the two men never laid eyes on each other, which leaves our theorist struggling to explain why Eddie Lyons gave the Diary of Jack the Ripper—found under the floorboards of an old Victorian House---to a complete stranger on the condition that he would later pay him a fair market price for a ‘partially used’ Victorian diary, to be determined by Martin Earl, bookseller!!

Has there ever been a more convoluted set of explanations?

My only motive in bringing up the strictly theoretical possibility that Barrett and Lyons knew each other prior to 9 March was to show that, even if someone was so bad at critical thinking (see post #6556—it didn’t age well!!) to accept Ike’s bizarre foray into junk statistics, the possibility would still exist that the Battlecrease provenance was originally staged by Lyons at Mike’s request, but the latter backed-out when he realized the plan was flawed.

But let me hastily add that I do not believe this is the correct answer. But others before me have already suggested it.

I fully accept that there is no evidence Lyons and Barrett knew each other. I think the correct answer is the one provided by Lord Orsam—and, ironically, by Paul Feldman!

P & R quizzed their workmen and they confirmed they found nothing. Nada. Zilch. Lyons wasn’t even there. It was just a common and pedestrian job at an old house. But then comes a wealthy filmmaker asking further questions—a bloke with a fast tongue, a fancy for wild theories, and with very deep pockets. Suddenly someone remembered a biscuit tin. Two old books. A ring. “Can I be in your film, Mr. Feldman?” “Do you pay well, Mr. Feldman?” “I will go on record, Mr. Feldman…” (See Feldy’s book for details). But Feldman immediately smells a rat and realizes nothing was found at Dodd’s. It was just a very non-eventful electrical job, but the lure of 15 minutes of fame, along with a smattering of possible profit, made one unnamed bloke shift quickly on his feet in a futile attempt to summoned up a bogus story from the depths of nothingness.

Watch this space, Dear Readers, and pay special attention to how Caz will never completely acknowledge the points in Jeff Hamm's posts, nor go back and admit that Ike was engaging in junk statistics. She'll dance around the issue like Anna Pavlova.

--see you on the other side.

[caz]

I take back my comments in Post #6617. It is now obvious that you still can't grasp that this is what Ike is doing, and not what I am doing.

Ike is the one foolishly incorporating his own theories into his mathematical equation. (That the diary is old, therefore the number 37,557 is relevant)

I am confining myself strictly to what is actually known: that Dodd had work done on his house on the day that Barrett called a literary agent.

If the Maybricknicks can't grasp this very simply concept, then why waste anymore time discussing it?

No, no, no, RJ. Ike was not presuming the diary is old, nor did he need to allow for that possibility!

The floorboards date back to Maybrick's brief occupancy of the house in 1888/9.

The diary, from internal clues, identifies the author as supposedly Maybrick, who died in May 1889.

That's all that is being presumed, and all that is needed in order to explore the 'coincidence' theory, of Maybrick's floorboards being lifted - on the only recorded occasion since he died - on 9th March 1992, the same day a diary, signed Jack the Ripper [who was active in 1888], and supposedly written by Maybrick, first attracted the interest of a literary agent.

JtR and Maybrick both go back to 1888, regardless of whether the diary which materialised on 13th April was old, recent or did not even exist on 9th March.

If this was meant to be Jimmy Savile's diary, written shortly before he died in 2011, we wouldn't be factoring in dates going back any further than that, for bleedin' obvious reasons. Similarly, if this was Mike Barrett's diary, and the final entry was dated 9th March 1992, we wouldn't be looking at the possibility that it was found in Goldie Street in the 1940s.

All you need to know is when the real Maybrick died, because anyone at any time between then and 9th March 1992 could have phoned someone about the concept of a diary, such as the one Mike spoke to Doreen about and then produced on 13th April. The diary may not have existed until that day, but Maybrick and Jack the Ripper most certainly existed and were both diary worthy back in 1889.

I'm not sure why you can't grasp this.

But more later - hopefully tomorrow, but no promises - on the subject of Doreen being the first to express an interest in Mike's diary. Because I think that may be more significant than the call itself. Her positive response, on very little information, is what triggered everything that followed.