One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Well if he wanted it to be found after predicting his own death, no need to give it to servants or anyone else, he could’ve just shoved it under the bed or behind an item of furniture, but no this gravely unwell man got his tools out, possibly cleared any furniture that may have been on top of the floorboards and started prising floorboards up and the whole household that by this time was keeping a concerned eye on him were oblivious to that.

So many dangerous assumptions, Yabs! How do you know he waited until he was moribund before performing his feat of strength? Could he not have prised up a floorboard in 1888 - perhaps 'strengthened' by a healthy dose of his 'medicine'? Could he not have done so to hide other items he did not want anyone to see? If he did, would it therefore have been somewhat a doddle to stick his scrapbook in his hidden hole when he sensed his days were numbered?

We don't know, obviously, but we definitely need to avoid assuming that what we don't know therefore didn't happen.

Not very likely is it.

I'm inclined to disagree there, Yabs. On the contrary, in fact, I sense that it was very likely indeed.

[Iconoclast]

Yes and completely unthinkable that any owner of that property in the following hundred years never tended to or replaced these loose floorboards

What makes you think they didn't?

If Bob Carruthers (a false name to protect my ignorance) nailed that loose floorboard down with six-inch corkers over a wet weekend in February 1916, how would we know? And why would that matter?

[Yabs]

What makes you think they didn't?

If Bob Carruthers (a false name to protect my ignorance) nailed that loose floorboard down with six-inch corkers over a wet weekend in February 1916, how would we know? And why would that matter?

Well then Bob Curuthers did a very bad job.

Loose floorboards are very noticeable when trodden on as they have free movement and will rub against the adjacent boards, and squeak or will have a slight see-saw effect.

If you come across a loose floorboard what you don’t do is just hammer the nail back in, you check under the board for the joists and make sure you are not attempting to hammer a nail back where there may be a broken nail, you lift the board and check why it has become loose in the first place.
Not to mention the natural curiosity of what may be there under the loose floorboard

[rjpalmer]

Unless you believe they mean the Diary was placed where it would be found right away by servants who squirrelled it away again or pawned it at the local Formby laundry or relatives who didn’t destroy it, then it was stashed away.

It doesn't matter what I believe, Markus.

You wrote that "they textually put it in a serial killer stash in Battlecrease."

From previous postings, it is clear that by "stash" you mean a horde of trophies, etc.

As evidence, you quote the following line:

"I place this now in a place where it shall be found…”

The meaning of "this" is changed to "these" as you bring in the textually unmentioned watch (and presumably the equally unmentioned crucifix and biscuit tin?) while "in a place" becomes an undeniable reference to Battlecrease, or even the floorboards of Battlecrease, when the text doesn't specify either of these and throughout the diary there are passages suggestive of Maybrick writing while at work (the meddling Lowry, etc) and even once while on a trip to London, as he contemplates his train trip home.

Clearly, Feldman's imagination ran along different lines, Markus, because he became quite excited on learning that Anne Graham had worked on the former site of the Knowsley Buildings, where Maybrick's old office once stood. We are even told that Feldman made an attempt to trace what happened to the furniture, knowing that the textually vague "in a place" could equally apply to any number of locations, including the Cotton Exchange, etc. The hoaxer Mike Barrett pushed the Knowsley Buidlings provenance theory, pointing out that the diary's last line, and only date, 3 May 1889--was the last day the real James Maybrick had attended work.

There was a certain logic to it that is more palatable than a vomiting Maybrick leaping from his death bed, pulling a crowbar out of his pajama bottoms, and going at the floorboards in earnest, hoping the whole while not to alert Yapp.

Later, Feldman mused "in a place" could have been a laundry basket, as Alice Yapp whisked the diary away to her good friend Elizabeth Formby's launderette.

There's a lesson here somewhere. One can dispute facts, Markus, but one cannot hope to dispute someone else's imagination. If you see it, for you it is there, and I can't say otherwise.

[rjpalmer]

OMG - the noise from the sirens as the Irony Police race towards RJ's house to arrest him for this flagrant abuse! The above quotation was actually typed - one wonders if truly without any sense of irony whatsoever - by a man who has laid all of his eggs in a basket case (and well-established inveterate liar) called Michael Barrett! He and Orsam wish-away the Battlecrease evidence as if it were confetti blowing in the wind at a wedding, amounting to nothing much at all - and then preach to us all that their Eleven-Day Evangelism is the one true religion! Unbelievable! RJ (on the prayer mat with Orsam) may well have convinced himself that the Battlecrease provenance "has no meat on the bone" but their Eleven-Day Evangelism doesn't even have any bone! Unbelievable ...

Steady on, Ike.

The hysteria that you exhibit at someone simply inviting Markus to use cold, hard logic and to limit his calculations to what can truly be known about that infamous date, 9 March 1992, is really quite telling.

I can almost see the steam rolling from your forehead and the froth at your lips.

That you immediately launch into irrelevant facts like floorboards (which are nowhere referenced in the text) or even the date of Maybrick's death (totally irrelevant to the known facts and to any ensuing calculations) shows your willingness to inject theory and your own imagination into what should be cold, hard mathematical equations.

As such, I humbly suggest you start with a clean slate, and join Markus in his exercise.

But, in truth, I've come to view debating with the Maybrickians as "punching down," to use a trendy phrase. It's like telling children that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, and it makes me feel rather sorry that I have to do so.

I'll check back tomorrow and see if you've made any progress in correctly calculating the odds based on the limited data we have.

[rjpalmer]

His name was Gerald Owens so I guess Ged would be more likely than Jed (no need for the double-d) but - without seeing his personal preference in writing - I guess we'll never know how he foreshortened his name. Seth wrote it once in Inside Story (as far as I can tell) so he may have typo'd it or else he may have assumed that that was how it was spelled.

You decide!

Personally, I much prefer Jed Owens, knowing that the initials J.O. would have sent Feldman's mind flying to the far side of the moon as he contemplated the watch.

It's curious that the "typo," if typo it was, wasn't pounced on by you-know-who.

But whatever. Enjoy your weekend.

[Iconoclast]

Steady on, Ike.

Steady on yourself, RJ - and let me tell you why.

The hysteria that you exhibit at someone simply inviting Markus to use cold, hard logic and to limit his calculations to what can truly be known about that infamous date, 9 March 1992, is really quite telling. I can almost see the steam rolling from your forehead and the froth at your lips.

None of this was the case, of course, but you can rest assured I wasn't going to allow that irony crisis to escalate any further. Coming from your position, you have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to imply anyone else's theory has no substance, chummy.

That you immediately launch into irrelevant facts like floorboards (which are nowhere referenced in the text) ...

Irrelevant? You asked the question, "What is the MOST information you really know for certain?" to which I responded appropriately, part of my answer including the issue around the floorboards being raised on the morning of March 9, 1992. Irrelevant? Is that what hard evidence is in your opinion (especially if it buggers up your rather outlandish Eleven-Day Evangelism anything-but gospel)?

... or even the date of Maybrick's death (totally irrelevant to the known facts and to any ensuing calculations) ...

Just because you do not understand probability theory, RJ, you mustn't confuse that with insight into the argument you were making. I didn't mention the date of Maybrick's death, but the 103 years I did mention was illustrative of the implausible nature of the double event which unfolded on March 9, 1992. If you think it was NOT illustrative, you would presumably have no problem whatsoever in accepting as a coincidence the double event had it occurred on the same day one million years in the future? (This employs the logical principle of reductio ad absurdum, so please don't attempt to mock it as foolish unless you wish yourself to look very foolish indeed).

... shows your willingness to inject theory and your own imagination into what should be cold, hard mathematical equations.

The only cold, hard mathematical equation was March 9, 1992 minus May 11, 1889 in terms of number of days. Nothing theoretical and nothing imaginative, unless of course you are seeking to mock from the cold, dark shadows and you think that muddying my intentions is a means to achieve this whilst simultaneously failing miserably to back up your point with evidence of my theorising or imagination.

I'll check back tomorrow and see if you've made any progress in correctly calculating the odds based on the limited data we have.

"Limited data", dear readers, is a sleight of hand. It means, "Believe this is true or else you are a fool". There is no "limited data". Data is only limited by what is required to calculate an outcome from it. We can easily calculate the odds you mention (at very least, the simplest odds) and indeed I did (yet again) but that wasn't what you wanted our dear readers to absorb so you called it "limited". It's a very obvious strategy, RJ, and one you have been adopting for a long, long time.

Fortunately, I am here to call it out for what it is.

No, honestly, dear readers, you're welcome. Please feel free to hit that "Subscribe" button, give me a thumbs-up, become a patron of my channel, or Buy Me a Coffee. No donation too big, no donation too small, but in denominations of ten pounds, please, to keep my tax affairs simple.

[Iconoclast]

It's curious that the "typo," if typo it was, wasn't pounced on by you-know-who.

The Dark Lord of Utter Darkness?

Was he active in these here parts back in the day?

The book came out in 2003 (IIRC) so it was far more likely to have been pounced on by others, so I'm guessing you mean one-of-those was you-know-who?

Anyway, I do hope you have a most pleasant weekend too, RJ, and you will if you just steer clear of winding me up in the course of it ...

[rjpalmer]

The only cold, hard mathematical equation was March 9, 1992 minus May 11, 1889 in terms of number of days. Nothing theoretical and nothing imaginative, unless of course you are seeking to mock from the cold, dark shadows and you think that muddying my intentions is a means to achieve this whilst simultaneously failing miserably to back up your point with evidence of my theorising or imagination.

It's shocking, and not a little demoralizing, to realize that you come from the same island that gave the word Hume, Locke, and the other British Empiricists who relied on cold, detached reasoning.

That's all I am asking you to do, Ike. To carry the mantle of your ancient and esteemed countrymen and to do it both competently and proudly.

Can you not grasp how you are inappropriately injecting theory into a mathematical equation?

It is not known that the diary was written by Maybrick (and, in truth, there is abundant evidence that it wasn't) and thus beginning from a position of authenticity and then counting backwards from the last entry date is incompetent in the extreme, and entirely incestuous in its reasoning. A date scribbled in a questioned document is no more relevant to the question of what happened on March 9, 1992 than the distance of the sun from the moon or the amount of socks Winston Churchill wore in his lifetime.

I might as well argue 2 + 2 = 6, because the first 2 might have decided to bring along a friend before joining up with the second 2, who could have invited her auntie over.

Stick to the facts, Old Bean, and quit injecting your desires and whims and flights of fancy. You do not know that the floorboards are relevant.

What Hume and Locke would have pointed out to you is that because the floorboards are not referenced in the questioned document, you are inappropriately injecting personal inference into what must remain a matter of mathematics. Locke and Hume would have reasoned, just as I reason, that had the electricians instead torn out the wall or monkeyed around in the rafters of the attic, etc. you would have drawn an identical conclusion.

Those rafters were inspected for the first time since 1889! etc etc

That the floorboards were taken up is an apparent fact (though your good friend Lord Orsam has challenged whether this is really in evidence) but since it is not known that anything was found under them (and the men present deny that there was), they play no part in any competent calculation of the odds of Barrett calling a London agent on the same day that Dodd had workmen in.

For all I know, Dodd may have had workmen in very regularly, so the odds of events like this coinciding could be quite high.

Further, as Jeff Hamm has pointed out, it is impossible to calculate the human imagination. People will invent stories.

So, another calculation you can attempt (and which, in my estimation is more appropriate) is what are the odds that a London video producer, having called up various strangers on the phone to inquire or accuse them of a stolen object from a customer's house, might stumble upon someone willing to tell him what he wants to hear?

3 to 1? 8 to 1? It's impossible to know, but this was apparently the conclusion drawn by Feldman, Harrison, and Dodd himself.

[Iconoclast]

It's shocking, and not a little demoralizing, to realize that you come from the same island that gave the word Hume, Locke, and the other British Empiricists who relied on cold, detached reasoning.
That's all I am asking you to do, Ike. To carry the mantle of your ancient and esteemed countrymen and to do it both competently and proudly.

I am English, RJ. I just happen to live in (and love) Scotland.

Can you not grasp how you are inappropriately injecting theory into a mathematical equation?
It is not known that the diary was written by Maybrick (and, in truth, there is abundant evidence that it wasn't) and thus beginning from a position of authenticity and then counting backwards from the last entry date is incompetent in the extreme, and entirely incestuous in its reasoning. A date scribbled in a questioned document is no more relevant to the question of what happened on March 9, 1992 than the distance of the sun from the moon or the amount of socks Winston Churchill wore in his lifetime. I might as well argue 2 + 2 = 6, because the first 2 might have decided to bring along a friend before joining up with the second 2, who could have invited her auntie over.

This is embarrassing, RJ, and quite inappropriate for the debate we are having. The likelihood of the double event of March 9, 1992, has nothing to do with uncertainties. We know those two events happened on March 9, 1992; and we also know that James Maybrick died on May 11, 1889, so our mathematical calculation is as solid as a rock and based entirely upon known facts.

Please stop mentioning floorboards as if they have some bearing upon this calculation. They do not.

Stick to the facts, Old Bean, and quit injecting your desires and whims and flights of fancy. You do not know that the floorboards are relevant.

Dear God, man, RJ - please stick to the issues that are pertinent.

What Hume and Locke would have pointed out to you is that because the floorboards are not referenced in the questioned document, you are inappropriately injecting personal inference into what must remain a matter of mathematics. Locke and Hume would have reasoned, just as I reason, that had the electricians instead torn out the wall or monkeyed around in the rafters of the attic, etc. you would have drawn an identical conclusion.

I would, absolutely. I am not wedded to the scrapbook coming from under the floorboards - it's just that the evidence points us all to it! What is relevant in the double event is the two events which coincided on the same day 37,000+ days after Maybrick's death, not the inference we have drawn as to what the electricians were doing (although we do not need to wonder because the floorboards coming up is what we know the electricians were doing that morning).

That the floorboards were taken up is an apparent fact (though your good friend Lord Orsam has challenged whether this is really in evidence) but since it is not known that anything was found under them (and the men present deny that there was), they play no part in any competent calculation of the odds of Barrett calling a London agent on the same day that Dodd had workmen in.

I don't think you're fooling anyone with this tomfoolery, RJ. We are only debating the odds of this happening by chance precisely because we don't have evidence that anything was found under the floorboards! That is the entire point: we calculate the probability of the floorboards coming up on the very same day that someone rang someone offering a diary of Jack the Ripper written supposedly by James Maybrick some 37,000+ days after he died in order to determine the likelihood that the former event which is known (the floorboards coming up) was the cause of the second event (the known 'phone call to Rupert Crew). Honestly, you need to get over this problem you have with the relevance of the floorboards in this mathematical calculation of the probability of the double event of March 9, 1992, occurring purely by chance alone.

For all I know, Dodd may have had workmen in very regularly, so the odds of events like this coinciding could be quite high.

No, RJ, your language is incorrect probabilistically. If Dodds had had workmen in very regularly, the odds of events like this coinciding would be higher by some degree (which would be determined entirely by how often those workmen were in fact in Battlecrease House prior to March 9, 1992). You can't go straight to "quite high" just because it sounds better for your argument.

Further, as Jeff Hamm has pointed out, it is impossible to calculate the human imagination. People will invent stories.

Well no-one invented the date of James Maybrick's death, and no-one invented the electricians working in Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992, having raised the floorboards to do so, and no-one invented the 'phone call Mike Barrett made to Rupert Crew Ltd. later that day, so I'm really not sure why you are quoting Jeff there (other than, as ever, to throw in irrelevant details to potentially muddy the key facts of the matter).

So, another calculation you can attempt (and which, in my estimation is more appropriate) is what are the odds that a London video producer, having called up various strangers on the phone to inquire or accuse them of a stolen object from a customer's house, might stumble upon someone willing to tell him what he wants to hear?

To calculate that, you would need to know how many 'strangers' would lie for money coupled with how many such 'phone calls Feldman would make, but it's all utterly irrelevant to the fact that James Maybrick died on May 11, 1889, and 37,000+ days later to the very day, the double event occurred in Liverpool. So, what is your point, caller?

3 to 1? 8 to 1? It's impossible to know, but this was apparently the conclusion drawn by Feldman, Harrison, and Dodd himself.

It's only impossible to know if you don't have all of the relevant data, RJ, and/or if you don't understand probability theory.

[Scott Nelson]

Again, what about the possibility, instead of something being found in the house on March 9, 1992, that someone (ie., Eddie Lyons) told Mike Barrett on that day that he heard about a book being found there years earlier? A rewrite Mike already possessed?

[rjpalmer]

I am not wedded to the scrapbook coming from under the floorboards - it's just that the evidence points us all to it! What is relevant in the double event is the two events which coincided on the same day 37,000+ days after Maybrick's death, not the inference we have drawn as to what the electricians were doing (although we do not need to wonder because the floorboards coming up is what we know the electricians were doing that morning).

Hi Ike,

So, using your methodology, if a journalist contacted the Liverpool Echo on May 18, 1889, announcing that he had the Diary of Jim Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper and we learned that the floorboards at Battlecrease had gone up that same day, we would have to place the odds of those two events randomly coinciding at mere 7 to 1?

So not really all that impressive? Barely enough to even tickle our suspicions?

But if the same events happened a year later, the odds of those events coinciding would now be 372 to 1? So, we are now--based on the mere passing of time-- supposed to be more impressed?

But because Barrett didn't think to hoax the diary until 1992, the exact same two events coinciding is now aprox. 37,000 to 1?

And if these events didn't coincide until the year 3092, they would now be at an astronomical 767,000 to 1, even though they are basically still the same two events?

I'm truly interested in your thought process here. What exactly do you think this mathematical jiggery-pokery is supposed to tell us about whether Eddie Lyons found the diary and sold it to Barrett?

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

So, using your methodology, if a journalist contacted the Liverpool Echo on May 18, 1889, announcing that he had the Diary of Jim Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper and we learned that the floorboards at Battlecrease had gone up that same day, we would have to place the odds of those two events randomly coinciding at mere 7 to 1?

So not really all that impressive? Barely enough to even tickle our suspicions?

But if the same events happened a year later, the odds of those events coinciding would now be 372 to 1? So, we are now--based on the mere passing of time-- supposed to be more impressed?

But because Barrett didn't think to hoax the diary until 1992, the exact same two events coinciding is now aprox. 37,000 to 1?

And if these events didn't coincide until the year 3092, they would now be at an astronomical 767,000 to 1, even though they are basically still the same two events?

I'm truly interested in your thought process here. What exactly do you think this mathematical jiggery-pokery is supposed to tell us about whether Eddie Lyons found the diary and sold it to Barrett?

With every passing breath, RJ, you reveal that you do not understand statistics. What we are debating is - and I'll break it down:

If we know that since Time X two events have definitely occurred and we believe that they occurred entirely by chance alone, then the simple probability (avoiding any statistical upselling around ages of houses or what have you) that they would occur on the same day is simply 1 (the number of times that had happened) over the number of days they could have happened in.

So that's your 1-in-7 or your 1-in-372 or your 1-in-37,000+ or your 1-in-767,000. So, if two events definitely happened and there were only seven days they could have occurred in, then their coinciding on the same day purely by chance alone is self-evidently significantly more likely than if, say, a million years had passed before they both happened and yet still they happened on the same day.

It's simples statistics, mate.

[rjpalmer]

It's simples statistics, mate.

Ike, your analysis is entirely bogus, but at least it’s good for a laugh. Cheers.

For some bizarre reason, you’ve decided that it is appropriate to factor in the days when the floorboards were not lifted.

Think it through, Old Man. That, in a nutshell, is the flaw in your mathematical malpractice.

It’s still the same two events. No amount of double-talk or jiggery-pokery changes that.
.
The floorboards are lifted for the first time (supposedly)/a man goes to a literary agent with the diary.

Same two events, the same coincidence.

Whether this happened on May 17, 1889, or March 9, 1992 the two events are exactly the same and the coincidence is exactly the same.

Yet, for some unexplainable and illogical reason, you’ve decided to give credit to all the intervening days when the floorboards weren’t lifted, and nothing happened, and the earth was merely drifting its way around the sun.

Somehow, this meaningless non-factor that would be avoided by any competent statistician takes center stage in your analysis.

In your mind, the same exact coincidence is greater and more profound because it happened in 1992 rather than in 1889---and you’ve convinced yourself of this (and apparently convinced Markus and Jay and perhaps others) by simply counting backwards to when the subject of the hoax died.

It’s the epitome of allowing irrelevant data to cloud one's thinking.

That you can’t grasp the flaw is startling, but sometimes one must let it go.

If the children are going to run with scissors, they’ll do so. One can’t police them 24/7.

But thank you.

It’s been illuminating. Your analysis convinces me that Mike and Anne never fooled anyone.

Truly, it has always been a matter of believers fooling themselves.

[Lombro2]

It doesn't matter what I believe, Markus.

You wrote that "they textually put it in a serial killer stash in Battlecrease."

From previous postings, it is clear that by "stash" you mean a horde of trophies, etc.

As evidence, you quote the following line:

"I place this now in a place where it shall be found…”

The meaning of "this" is changed to "these" as you bring in the textually unmentioned watch (and presumably the equally unmentioned crucifix and biscuit tin?) while "in a place" becomes an undeniable reference to Battlecrease, or even the floorboards of Battlecrease, when the text doesn't specify either of these and throughout the diary there are passages suggestive of Maybrick writing while at work (the meddling Lowry, etc) and even once while on a trip to London, as he contemplates his train trip home.

Clearly, Feldman's imagination ran along different lines, Markus, because he became quite excited on learning that Anne Graham had worked on the former site of the Knowsley Buildings, where Maybrick's old office once stood. We are even told that Feldman made an attempt to trace what happened to the furniture, knowing that the textually vague "in a place" could equally apply to any number of locations, including the Cotton Exchange, etc. The hoaxer Mike Barrett pushed the Knowsley Buidlings provenance theory, pointing out that the diary's last line, and only date, 3 May 1889--was the last day the real James Maybrick had attended work.

There was a certain logic to it that is more palatable than a vomiting Maybrick leaping from his death bed, pulling a crowbar out of his pajama bottoms, and going at the floorboards in earnest, hoping the whole while not to alert Yapp.
;

That’s a fascinating observation, RJ.

So we actually have Maybrick writing most of the diary at work and then we have him going there on his last day at work on May 3rd, presumably retrieving it and making his last entry before being bedridden at Battlecrease his last week of life where he died on the 11th.

There were no entries while he was lying in bed dying and presumably under observation. Well thought out! Fascinating detail!