One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

So I think we are all happy to move on from our recent excursions into probability theory. RJ's friend's brother's podiatrist exclaimed "You can't do it like that!" (and then asked RJ's friend's brother what probability theory was), and Jeff Hamm attempted a polite foray into assessing the multiple variables in any given experimental set-up, not realising (badly briefed) that we were debating the simplest possible calculation of odds not preparing some complex meta-analysis of all the previous experiments conducted on Maybrick's home, his office, his brothers' homes, his friends' homes, his friends' brothers' home, even his friends' brothers' podiatrists' homes, and then - of course - John Over's outhouse.

Caz did what I should have done and clarified that the work on the floorboards had nothing whatsoever to do with the age of the house - their raising was merely to provide a means of laying electrical cabling for the new storage heaters which would eventually be installed later that July by a contrite Eddie Lyons, bricking himself that his spur-of-the-moment 'relocation' of the Victorian scrapbook on March 9, 1992 had already unravelled so spectacularly on the news from The Saddle by a delighted Mike Barrett that he was finally going to write a best-seller and therefore potentially send Eddie to chokey for a ten-stretch.

So I suggest that we are done with the stats for now, but - be warned - if anyone starts it up again, I'll be right back at it.

[Iconoclast]

I just assumed Caz was too polite to call him a massive wanker!

Agreed. She is the queen of the clever pun, it has to be said.

[Iconoclast]

Now then, guys, how ya doing? Back on the road again!

Here's a wee gem that just occurred to me this morning whilst reading Smith's 25 Years (paperback). In the Victorian scrapbook written in genuine Victorian ink by unemployed Mike Barrett in Liverpool in eleven days in April 1992, there's reference to 'Maybrick' (pah!) claiming that he had received 'but one' letter from his beloved brother Edwin since the latter had scuttled off the America some months earlier.

Now, I'm guessing that Barrett had not done his research so thoroughly (after all, it's a popular meme 'round here that he created nothing better than a 'shoddy hoax' one wet weekend, etc.) that he had checked any and all possible Maybrick archives before sticking that throwaway line into his turgid, unbelievable text?

I hear you, I hear you - "Why would anyone think there would be archive material preserved for the first ever American woman to be condemned to death in a British court and for whom there was an international outcry and various books written over the years?"; and I would agree, but - that said - I'm just sitting here thinking, "Why stick the line in anyway?". Why stick a line in that isn't required but which would immediately blow the hoax out of the water if it turned out that nestling in some old Maybrick archive were a bunch of love letters from Edwin to Florrie, and a pile of missives from him to James?

Obviously, the scrapbook was written by that arch-fiend and ex-scrap metal dealer (that lot at it again with their brilliant forgeries and gold bullion heists!), Mike Barrett, no arguments there - but why oh why oh why oh why did he feel the need to compromise his efforts with such an irrelevant piece of information which could have been so easily disproven after the event?

If only we had a resident poster who had a degree in irrelevancy who could shed some light on this for us.

[caz]

Oh - I get it now!

I've been counting all the days before 1992 that the two events could have happened on the same day. What an idiot I am! I should have just counted the days in 1992 that conveniently made the statistical miracle seem as unremarkable as just another episode of Coronation Street coming on the TV. How on earth could I have missed this one?

Doh!

What you missed, Ike, was RJ's reference to a 'bogus' diary, which was a bit of a giveaway. If you start with the presumption that the diary was created to deceive the book-buying public, and the old book used for the purpose was not obtained until 31st March 1992, all those nasty horrible dates before 1992 are de trop and Bob's yer Uncle. Coincidence. Case closed. I'm surprised Lord Godawful bothered to fanny around with figures in the first place. Maybe Fanny's his Aunt.

That's how you do statistics when your mind is already made up. You don't!

I don't personally believe the diary goes back all the way to May 1889, but I'm not allowed to presume that any more than you are allowed to presume it does, when considering if the double event was in reality two single, totally unconnected ones.

Coincidentally, the only people allowed to presume the physical diary goes back no further than April 1992 are also those who insist that it's a valid exercise to count only the days in 1992. What are the chances?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

What you missed, Ike, was RJ's reference to a 'bogus' diary, which was a bit of a giveaway. If you start with the presumption that the diary was created to deceive the book-buying public, and the old book used for the purpose was not obtained until 31st March 1992, all those nasty horrible dates before 1992 are de trop and Bob's yer Uncle. Coincidence. Case closed. I'm surprised Lord Godawful bothered to fanny around with figures in the first place. Maybe Fanny's his Aunt.

That's how you do statistics when your mind is already made up. You don't!

I don't personally believe the diary goes back all the way to May 1889, but I'm not allowed to presume that any more than you are allowed to presume it does, when considering if the double event was in reality two single, totally unconnected ones.

Coincidentally, the only people allowed to presume the physical diary goes back no further than April 1992 are also those who insist that it's a valid exercise to count only the days in 1992. What are the chances?

Love,

Caz
X

I feel such a fool, Caz, I really do.

So the diary really was a hoax created by Mike Barrett in April 1992? I was only joking when I said it in my post above (in case anyone was wondering), but now that you've pointed-out that two people in the world think Barrett did it in those eleven days, it's like a light bulb going on in my head (cheap excuse for another smiley).


So now I also understand why my stats were so badly wrong - the diary was definitely only created in April 1992 so it's absolutely obvious that we should go back to the arbitrary date of January 1, 1992 to calculate the odds of it emerging on the same day work was done in Maybrick's house that year. You know what - it's just occurred to me! - why don't we start at March 9, 1992 and finish on the 14th day that year work was known to be done in Maybrick's house? That way, the odds would tumble even further!

Anyway, I'm humbled by this revelation, and grateful that you were all so tolerant of me when I was raging on and on and on about irrelevant years before 1992.

Mind you, if RJ and Lord O knew for an absolute fact that Mike had created the diary in April 1992, I wish they'd just said so and provided the incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable evidence to back it up!



Ike

[caz]

Agreed. She is the queen of the clever pun, it has to be said.

Thank you kindly.

When I calculated the proportion of my puns that got picked up on by the average true Barrett believer, I found that no pun in ten did.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Now then, guys, how ya doing? Back on the road again!

Here's a wee gem that just occurred to me this morning whilst reading Smith's 25 Years (paperback). In the Victorian scrapbook written in genuine Victorian ink by unemployed Mike Barrett in Liverpool in eleven days in April 1992, there's reference to 'Maybrick' (pah!) claiming that he had received 'but one' letter from his beloved brother Edwin since the latter had scuttled off the America some months earlier.

Now, I'm guessing that Barrett had not done his research so thoroughly (after all, it's a popular meme 'round here that he created nothing better than a 'shoddy hoax' one wet weekend, etc.) that he had checked any and all possible Maybrick archives before sticking that throwaway line into his turgid, unbelievable text?

I hear you, I hear you - "Why would anyone think there would be archive material preserved for the first ever American woman to be condemned to death in a British court and for whom there was an international outcry and various books written over the years?"; and I would agree, but - that said - I'm just sitting here thinking, "Why stick the line in anyway?". Why stick a line in that isn't required but which would immediately blow the hoax out of the water if it turned out that nestling in some old Maybrick archive were a bunch of love letters from Edwin to Florrie, and a pile of missives from him to James?

Obviously, the scrapbook was written by that arch-fiend and ex-scrap metal dealer (that lot at it again with their brilliant forgeries and gold bullion heists!), Mike Barrett, no arguments there - but why oh why oh why oh why did he feel the need to compromise his efforts with such an irrelevant piece of information which could have been so easily disproven after the event?

If only we had a resident poster who had a degree in irrelevancy who could shed some light on this for us.

Just a tick, Ike, I'll pop outside and ask the three fit lads who are putting a new fence up and clipping all the hedges to take a quick break and shed some light on this, before they get too carried away trimming my bush and seeing to my clematis.

And before anyone says it, there is no such thing as having too much information.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

... before they get too carried away trimming my bush and seeing to my clematis ...

Stop it - the vicar's just passed out!

[caz]

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.

I must have misunderstood two things here.

1) That you are allowed to quote from Orsam's gospel.

I thought you could only post a link, whether it's to where he posted something on casebook before he went off in a huff and was not invited to return, or whether it's to his post-casebook thoughts, from his place of banishment.

2) The following brief quote from Orsam's gospel, which was emailed to me:

'But the point here is that, being friends, Eddie could easily have mentioned Maybrick in conversation with Mike either on or shortly before 9 March 1992...'

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?

Has there ever been a clearer demonstration of someone who wouldn't recognise the workings of an open mind and flexible thinking from a hole in the ground?

Even RJ's Lord and Master shows that he can juggle with alternative scenarios, believing that Mike and Eddie had never met before 1993, but accepting that they could have been friends by 9th March 1992, when he has an explanation in mind for how the floorboards and the phone call could 'easily' be connected and the diary still be a Barrett hoax which was just a photo album before April Fools' Day.

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.

Was this really the product of RJ's closed mind, or did he adapt it from Orsam's flexible thinking on the subject?

For my part, I don't care whether Mike and Eddie had been bosom buddies from their cradle, or drank regularly in the Saddle together when Eddie was meant to be working over in Skem, or met for the first time on 9th March 1992. There is other circumstantial evidence to suggest they were in contact after this date and long before Mike tore round to Fountains Rd to threaten Eddie with solicitors if he said he'd found the diary in Maybrick's house. Also on record are two attempts by Mike, in April and May 1993, to get information out of Colin Rhodes. Firstly he phoned to ask if the company had worked at 7 Riversdale Road and the names of his employees; more than a month later he was still fishing and got a solicitor's letter sent to Colin, but this time Mike only wanted to know the dates on which the company was involved with work at that address. The implication is that between the two attempts he learned that the company had indeed worked there and who the employees were, and then it became necessary to know when.

So for all the flexible thinkers out there, the possibility is that Mike already knew Eddie Lyons before making the first enquiry in April 1993, but just wanted to know if he had been employed by Portus & Rhodes and could therefore have worked at the house. Getting confirmation from another source [Feldy had managed to get some names and worksheets from Colin, but was only looking for any dates before August 1991], Mike then needed to know the days when Eddie had worked there, to work out if that's where he could have found the "old book" he had with him at The Saddle on 9th March 1992. But there is no evidence that Mike was ever given that information.

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.

It's easy to go on believing this until doomsday with a mind as tightly closed as a gnat's chuff.

But it is only a belief, sustained by an incomplete knowledge of everything on the record, and is therefore no better than a bogus story from the depths of nothingness, much like the one featuring an auction on 31st March 1992.

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.

I have addressed the points in Jeff's post which were irrelevant, and therefore had no place in his reasoning. I had just one last glimmer of hope that RJ would have beaten me to it and put him straight over the work not being inevitable, as it did not involve repairing, restoring or replacing anything old. It's entirely possible that Colin Rhodes only rang Paul Dodd when it became necessary to leave the job at Skem temporarily, to ask if it was convenient to slot in the preparatory work for the storage heaters at short notice. The heaters would not be installed for another three months, and would not actually be needed until the cold weather returned in the autumn.

[caz]

I meant to add...

If Mike was fishing for information from Colin Rhodes to see if he could 'manufacture' a better provenance for his fake diary, using any of the work done in Maybrick's house, I wonder why he reacted so angrily when Feldy offered him one on a plate. All Mike needed to say was that he thought it quite possible, if not highly plausible, that Tony Devereux had got the diary from someone who had a connection with Battlecrease - or indeed Knowsley Buildings. Either was good. He'd have known the electricians couldn't prove it was his diary that was found at any time, if he and Anne created it from the album he obtained from the O&L auction. For a start, if asked to describe anything about the book in 1993, none of them could have done so. For the same reason, Mike would have known Paul Dodd couldn't prove any claim he might make to ownership. But the possibility of a connection between Tony and the house would still have been on the table and there for the taking, with nothing to lose. Mike didn't need to go along with any deal offered if he knew the parties concerned could prove nothing. But he would certainly have had no need to take any connection off the table and deny it outright, by insisting the diary never came from Dodd's house. And indeed it was a foolish denial if he was not meant know where it came from, because Tony had never told him.

I bet Mike was bricking it this time, if he knew Eddie could describe the "old book", down to the brown paper it was wrapped in on 9th March 1992.

I think it's fairly obvious he was worried by April 1993 that Eddie had nicked it from Battlecrease, hence his two fishing expeditions. The alternative explanation doesn't hold much water.

[rjpalmer]

I must have misunderstood two things here.

1) That you are allowed to quote from Orsam's gospel.

Nice attempt to get a fellow poster banned, Caz, but I am careful to only quote 'Orsam' if it is something already available on this website. As I already noted, the excerpt was taken from the 'Acquiring a Victorian Diary' thread.

I do not directly quote anything from his website, nor am I being fed emails by his Lordship, nor am I posting on his behalf.

I could refrain from mentioning him all together, but seeing that he is living rent-free inside your head (and Erobitha and Ike's heads) and you keep bringing him up, it seems more economical to merely quote him directly.

I suppose the owners of the website could deplete all of his posts entirely, but it would leave the diary threads hopelessly disconnected, and I assume they allow them to remain on the same principal that Mr. Justice Lindsay voiced during his ruling (back when the Diary's chief promoter, Robert Smith, was attempting to exert his gag order against the Sunday Times). That without information being freely available, there is 'a real possibility that…the public or some of its members, may be deceived.'

I am confident that the owners of this site are well-aware that the Diary is a hoax, and a modern one at that, and so they allow his rebuttals to stand. But feel free to seek clarification, and let me know if I am in violation of any policies.

As for the rest of it, it requires no further commentary. You've been caught-out doing your eel act.

If someone suggests that Eddie and Mike knew each other prior to 9 March 1992, and may have used Eddie's knowledge of upcoming repairs at Dodd's house to created a bogus backstory (later abandoned), you swiftly swoop in and declare there is not a whiff of evidence that Mike and Eddy knew each other.

But when someone asks why Eddie would then peddle the priceless artifact---the Diary of Jack the Ripper!--to a complete stranger for twenty-five pounds, suddenly Mike & Eddie are bosom buddies. Eddie sought-out Mike because he knew he was a writer! Thus that now famous sprint from Battlecrease to The Saddle, all while the sun is quickly sinking, and the crew at Crew are headed home for the afternoon.

And when someone asks why Eddie would hand over the priceless artifact--the Diary of Jack the Ripper!-- to the stranger Mike Barrett on credit, while awaiting to learn the going-rate for a 'partially blank Victorian diary' from Martin Earl, you suddenly grow silent. Even though that preposterous explanation is what you want us to believe.

It's predictable. And it's boring.

[The Baron]

Nice attempt to get a fellow poster banned, Caz, but I am careful to only quote 'Orsam' if it is something already available on this website. As I already noted, the excerpt was taken from the 'Acquiring a Victorian Diary' thread.

I do not directly quote anything from his website, nor am I being fed emails by his Lordship, nor am I posting on his behalf.

I could refrain from mentioning him all together, but seeing that he is living rent-free inside your head (and Erobitha and Ike's heads) and you keep bringing him up, it seems more economical to merely quote him directly.

I suppose the owners of the website could deplete all of his posts entirely, but it would leave the diary threads hopelessly disconnected, and I assume they allow them to remain on the same principal that Mr. Justice Lindsay voiced during his ruling (back when the Diary's chief promoter, Robert Smith, was attempting to exert his gag order against the Sunday Times). That without information being freely available, there is 'a real possibility that…the public or some of its members, may be deceived.'

I am confident that the owners of this site are well-aware that the Diary is a hoax, and a modern one at that, and so they allow his rebuttals to stand. But feel free to seek clarification, and let me know if I am in violation of any policies.

As for the rest of it, it requires no further commentary. You've been caught-out doing your eel act.

If someone suggests that Eddie and Mike knew each other prior to 9 March 1992, and may have used Eddie's knowledge of upcoming repairs at Dodd's house to created a bogus backstory (later abandoned), you swiftly swoop in and declare there is not a whiff of evidence that Mike and Eddy knew each other.

But when someone asks why Eddie would then peddle the priceless artifact---the Diary of Jack the Ripper!--to a complete stranger for twenty-five pounds, suddenly Mike & Eddie are bosom buddies. Eddie sought-out Mike because he knew he was a writer! Thus that now famous sprint from Battlecrease to The Saddle, all while the sun is quickly sinking, and the crew at Crew are headed home for the afternoon.

And when someone asks why Eddie would hand over the priceless artifact--the Diary of Jack the Ripper!-- to the stranger Mike Barrett on credit, while awaiting to learn the going-rate for a 'partially blank Victorian diary' from Martin Earl, you suddenly grow silent. Even though that preposterous explanation is what you want us to believe.

It's predictable. And it's boring.

Well said and a great post!



The Baron

[erobitha]

Well said and a great post!



The Baron

Thanks Dave

[rjpalmer]

I have addressed the points in Jeff's post which were irrelevant.

They weren't irrelevant, but let's set that aside. Is this an admission that you haven't addressed the points that you believe were relevant when the pitfalls and flaws in Ike's thinking were being exposed?

Or is it that you still don't understand what Jeff was saying?

Maybe this will help.

The possibilities of a story are endless, the fact this one appears improbable is like my 10 coins, that sequence is improbable, but I didn't predict it before I knew the information. The floorboards and the publisher call were not things predicted, then looked for, and then found, they were found, and a connection was made because a connection could be thought of. That's not improbable, that's how human creativity works, it's highly likely to happen.

This is a brilliant insight by Mr. Hamm, well expressed, but alas, it seems as if a wide swath of humanity can’t grasp the implications. Perhaps it’s too deep for them, or too counter-intuitive. I don’t know.

“A connection was made because a connection could be thought of. That’s not improbable, that’s how human creativity works.”


Ike, in particular, is still far away from ever understanding the implication, hence his desire to keep returning to his strictly imaginary odds of 37,585 to 1.

Yet, when someone points out he’s going about it all wrong—even if it is a lecturer on the subject—Ike rechecks his numbers, thumbs through his old college statistic books, checks the battery in his calculator, and then goes back to missing the point.

A house, a city, Central Liverpool, LIFE, is going to have many events that, looked at afterwards, could lead to a 'story' being concocted from random chance or even from an unconfirmed event (and Keith's ‘Battlecrease” provenance” falls in that latter category). Either by a well-meaning dreamer (a certain early diary researcher, perhaps) or by someone deliberately trying to concoct a story (Feldman’s unnamed electrician, looking for a cameo in his film) a ‘story’ is created. In the present case, it's that the Maybrick Hoax—despite all evidence to the contrary---was found under the floorboards of Battlecrease on 9 March 1992 and quickly sold to a stranger, Mike Barrett, within hours or maybe even within minutes.

It’s a little like the star-struck couple who first met at Gatwick Airport after a series of improbable events had thrown them into one another’s arms. ‘Mine Gott! If that freak thunderstorm hadn’t hit. If my Auntie Clara hadn’t taken ill. If my flight wasn’t redirected through Paris. If that coffee hadn’t been spilled on the floor and I hadn’t slipped into you! What are the odds!! It’s a miracle. It must be millions to 1. It is fate.”


A group of electricians who found an old diary is a ‘story¹.' Or actually, a series of stories, some of which directly contradict other stories, and some that even reference events that took place after Mike had already brought the diary to London (!)

Trying to convince the public that this ‘story’ happened by using junk statistics, as Ike has been doing, is, in effect, a tacit admission that those running interference for the hoax are willing to use gimmicks & flawed statistics instead of providing any actual evidence that something was found underneath the floorboards.

(You just HAVE TO BELIEVE ME, mate! Look at the odds!)

But ultimately it is only a trick that works on those who are incapable of understanding the ‘counter-intuitive’ pitfalls of statistics.

So, carry on, Diary Believers. Laugh and play games. That’s fine.

I am confident that the more astute readers who come across this thread in the future will be able to discern which way the wind blows.

No, Jeff. If you were told this by anyone, they were giving you duff information.

This, folks, is why people generally steer clear of those who defend the Maybrick Hoax.

It’s their paranoia.

Instead of reading and understanding what a lecturer on the subject is telling us, let’s pretend that he is being fed ‘duff information’ or simply doesn’t have the ability to grasp the facts.

Even though he has already explained where he got his information and why he drew his conclusions:

“nobody presented me with any biased or skewed version. I've read through the posts, considered the arguments and examples used, and in the end RJ's concern that the odds were being calculated as if the data were unknown was, and is, and always will be entirely correct.”

In case you’ve missed it the first time, Caz, he was not ‘presented with biased information.’

And, being a very sharp chap, he understands the issues at hand.

And in case you missed this:

“RJ’s concern that the odds calculated as if the date were unknown was, and is, and always will be entirely correct.”

Not bad for a wanker, eh?

Thanks Jeff, but I hope you would agree that it's pointless to factor in the much higher probability of repairs being needed to the floors of a property the older it gets, if floor repairs were never part of the equation.

That the floorboards were not 'repairs' makes not one iota of difference, and signals that you still don’t get it.

Call the floorboards anything you want. Call them being lifted a completely unique event in the history of mankind, just as Ike does (even though Dodd stated this wasn’t true, and the house had already wired years earlier, and had even been previously ‘gutted').

You are fixated on the electricians because that is the event that you happen to know about. That is the ‘ad hoc’ that Jeff is warning you of. The looking backwards after two events have already happened.

It was a story that you learned from Keith—partially confirmed by timesheets-- and now, with Ike’s misguided help, you are trying to reason backwards to figure the odds.

Alas, it doesn’t work like that, and trying to give more details about the history of Portus & Rhodes, etc. etc. isn’t going to change that.

It still doesn’t work like that.

If you still don’t’ believe me, meditate on this for a few days.

“Dealing with known data and working back to "what are the odds" is fraught with complexity, and the probabilities are not the same as if you started with a prediction and then seeing if that predicted outcome happens.

Have you got it now?

This is precisely what Ike was trying to do, and Jeff knows it. Scott knows it. I know it. If Lord Orsam is reading this thread, he knows it.

The people that don’t know it are Ike, you, ‘Erobitha,’ and now ‘Steven Owl.’

Calling the floorboard lifted by a different name won’t change anything. Ike changing the batteries in his calculator isn’t going to change anything, either.

His thinking will still be flawed.

But good luck trying.

RJ has made his bed, so now he can lie in it.

And a very comfortable bed it is!

Bye now.


¹And note that Caz Brown is back to calling their discovery an 'old book.' Orsam has already proven, with James Johnston's help, that none of the electricians had ever described an 'old book.' It was always just a 'book' or even 'two books.' This is potentially relevant for a number of reasons, including the Vincent Dring incident--finding a book behind a shelf or some such object--could have played a role in the ever-evolving and befuddled 'story' of a 'book' having been found at Battlecrease. And now, somewhat fittingly to a game of Chinese Whispers, the book has become an 'old book.'

[Iconoclast]

“RJ’s concern that the odds calculated as if the date were unknown was, and is, and always will be entirely correct.”

I think it's reasonable to say that I have said my piece over and over and I think I should stop doing so because it is rather clear that RJ is not going to stop until Jeff Hamm's two posts are re-interpreted as thus:

"Oh, absolutely, you simply cannot under any circumstances calculate the odds of two things so heavily redolent of the discovery of Jack the Ripper's journal happening on the same day precisely because you know it happened".

Knowing that something might happen is the first step towards calculating the probability that it might happen by chance. Knowing something did happen is the first step to calculating the probability that it did happen by chance.

Jeff's email was all about the former - the predictive nature of experimentation, and why we do research in the first place. My many emails have been all about the latter - how we can use really simple probability theory to calculate the odds of such things happening once we know that they did.

I don't blame Jeff for steering well clear of this debate now, but I call on him to be explicit: are you actually claiming that probability for known events happening simultaneously by chance alone cannot ever be calculated? I think you should answer this because these are the words being put in your mouth by RJ's very clumsy quoting.

This is the crux of the debate here and I'm not afraid of the answer.

Ike