Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Observer]

The dots ...... at the end of my little quip are intended to emphasise its intended irony. So your sides didn't split, then? And anyway, which particular admission of his are you referring to?

G

Well a leopard never changes it's spots Graham. I reckon he was a bit of a lad from the get go. He was certainly a Walter Mitty character by all accounts. I believe this exchange started when Mr Palmer revealed that

"Soon after returning to England, she [Anne Graham] accompanied a girlfriend to the Liverpool Irish club, where she met Michael Barrett, 'nicely dressed, articulate and intelligent,' for the first time. On 4 December 1975 they were married..." Ripper Diary, p. 208

After which I believe you made a reference to Mike Barrett having a wrestling match with the wife on the floor of his front room.

I was a bit lost with your post. Can't articulate intelligent Scousers have a bit of a ding dong with the missus?

By the way, as an aside you might find it remarkable but two families opposite my house are making use of the warm sunshine. About ten of them are in the front garden and are using the amp from a Karaoke machine to have a game of Bingo, no not Bongo. The are going the full hog with proper Bingo sheets, and what looks like an electronic device that's providing the numbers. This is not a wind up.

Twenty Two who's for the Flu.

[Observer]

Really important life lesson from YouTube yesterday. Watching a superb series of videos on quantum mechanics, presenter pointed out that the work of (I think) Paul Dirac was so revolutionary that his fellow theoretical physicist colleagues from around the world 'rounded upon him, accusing him of stupidity amongst other similarly dismissive epithets.

Fortunately for the truth, Dirac persisted. And Dirac was proven correct.

Just goes to show, doesn't it? You can face a barrage of criticism from the most intelligent people on the planet even when you are dealing with the truth. All you need to do is have the personal resolve to take it on the chin and persist with your argument.

Of course, as we all know, Society's Pillar is brilliant, but it's not quantum mechanics. Indeed, you could go as far as to say that it's not rocket science. I'm clearly no Paul Dirac (though I do have some of his socially awkward directness) and you lot are clearly not Einstein, Hubble, Bohr, etc.. Nevertheless, I personally take heart from Dirac's experience and his resolve.

I also hope that tales such as this remind all those on the 'popular' side of any argument that the 'argument from popularity' is not in itself the reason why their argument will ever be proven to be correct.

Hi Ike

Sometimes It's hard to detect when a really good WUM is winding you up, the above is a good example. In your own vernacular. Giv ower marra

By the way prof Jim Al-Kalili has some excellent documentaries on i player which deal with quantum mechanics.

[Graham]

Hey, by his own admission he perpetrated a fraud

The dots ...... at the end of my little quip are intended to emphasise its intended irony. So your sides didn't split, then? And anyway, which particular admission of his are you referring to?

G

[Iconoclast]

Really important life lesson from YouTube yesterday. Watching a superb series of videos on quantum mechanics, presenter pointed out that the work of (I think) Paul Dirac was so revolutionary that his fellow theoretical physicist colleagues from around the world 'rounded upon him, accusing him of stupidity amongst other similarly dismissive epithets.

Fortunately for the truth, Dirac persisted. And Dirac was proven correct.

Just goes to show, doesn't it? You can face a barrage of criticism from the most intelligent people on the planet even when you are dealing with the truth. All you need to do is have the personal resolve to take it on the chin and persist with your argument.

Of course, as we all know, Society's Pillar is brilliant, but it's not quantum mechanics. Indeed, you could go as far as to say that it's not rocket science. I'm clearly no Paul Dirac (though I do have some of his socially awkward directness) and you lot are clearly not Einstein, Hubble, Bohr, etc.. Nevertheless, I personally take heart from Dirac's experience and his resolve.

I also hope that tales such as this remind all those on the 'popular' side of any argument that the 'argument from popularity' is not in itself the reason why their argument will ever be proven to be correct.

[Observer]

As if Mike Barrett would ever have sunk that low.........

Hey, by his own admission he perpetrated a fraud

[Graham]

Dodgy lot scrap metal dealers, deceitful lot, they fiddle the scales you know.

As if Mike Barrett would ever have sunk that low.........

[Observer]

Nor the first scrap-metal dealer, either.

Dodgy lot scrap metal dealers, deceitful lot, they fiddle the scales you know.

[Observer]

Well, I was trying to avoid swearing in a public forum but - as you've compelled me, it's Sad Mackem B*******.

What's a Mackem by the way?

If it were not brilliant, possibly, but as it's universally known as the 'brilliant Society's Pillar', I think I can rest my case.

What a laugh. Universally known. Any endorsements? Give it a rest man. You know, you're not an unintelligent fella for a Magpie fan, you don't go around punching police horses I take it, flogging dead horses in this forum perhaps. One abbreviation I am familiar with is WUM, and I believe you fit into that category.

Opinion counts for nothing. Nothing whatsoever. The likelihood of an event is more often than not determined by one person's incredulity relative to another's. Neither means anything unless they are driven by evidence. So you can't say, "This is so much more likely to be true because I feel it is so much more likely to be true". It's like hiding a tautology by dressing it up as reasoning.

Then what's the point of discussion? I'm quite at ease letting the individual choose what he or she believes when presented with differing argument.

If he was protecting his scrapbook by intending to take a version of it down to Landarn Tarn, he may have been labouring under the illusion that he could say it was the real deal to avoid the distraction of his audience thinking "Why's he brought us a copy?" and then - when the die was cast - announce that "Actually, it's a copy - the original is even better".

Tell me why did he not do that then? He could have filled up the blank pages of the maroon diary with an abbreviated text of the original. That would have had the same effect. But he didn't did he? No he decided to chance his arm and dodge the Dodger, and take the "real" thing.

I would hate to disappoint ...

Trouble is, you did somewhat.

Like an epistemological Batman, it is my sworn duty to protect the truth from those with clumsy hands.

My Batman to your Joker.

Even my version accepted that he wanted blank pages (the issue was whether he was so specific as to say "at least 20 pages").

Ike

Your version is not very convincing I'm afraid, your clumsy hands saw to that.

[Graham]

He'd not be the first famous writer to knock his wife about

Nor the first scrap-metal dealer, either.

[Observer]

And is that the same Michael Barrett with whom Anne had a stand-up-knock-down punch-up on the sitting-room floor, witnessed I believe by their daughter? Or is the simple and logical answer that there were two Mike Barretts?

Graham

He'd not be the first famous writer to knock his wife about

[Iconoclast]

It's a ringing endorsement of Bongo's mental faculties in the mid-1970's

Ah - that clears the confusion up ...

[Iconoclast]

Haha, never heard that one before. I'm afraid the retort alludes me.

Well, I was trying to avoid swearing in a public forum but - as you've compelled me, it's Sad Mackem B*******.

You keep banging on about Society's Pillar, are you sure it's not a whipping post you've created for your own back?

If it were not brilliant, possibly, but as it's universally known as the 'brilliant Society's Pillar', I think I can rest my case.

Everyone's preferences are irrelevant. However each and every one of us can form an opinion as a result of examining the evidence. So let me put it before those easily led casual watchers to this forum those with a limited grasp of the case. Which of the following is more likely?

Opinion counts for nothing. Nothing whatsoever. The likelihood of an event is more often than not determined by one person's incredulity relative to another's. Neither means anything unless they are driven by evidence. So you can't say, "This is so much more likely to be true because I feel it is so much more likely to be true". It's like hiding a tautology by dressing it up as reasoning.

Why could he not have just bought a jotter at WH Smiths for a couple of bob and saved the 25 quid he spent on the diary?

If he was protecting his scrapbook by intending to take a version of it down to Landarn Tarn, he may have been labouring under the illusion that he could say it was the real deal to avoid the distraction of his audience thinking "Why's he brought us a copy?" and then - when the die was cast - announce that "Actually, it's a copy - the original is even better".

Really Ike, "reasonable alternative" I beg to differ in my opinion your version is rather silly. My snoop is intact.

Nope - it's quite snooped.

You'll probably reply in some smart ass manner to the above,

I would hate to disappoint ...

but as you say our preferences are irrelevant to each other. Each has his or her own preference, so let's leave it to those casual visitors of this forum, the one's with a limited knowledge of the Maybrick saga, to make up their own minds. We wouldn't want to mislead them would we?

Like an epistemological Batman, it is my sworn duty to protect the truth from those with clumsy hands.

The undeniable truth in this matter is Barrett obviously stipulated that he wanted a diary with blank pages. What the individual has to determine is why he wanted a diary with blank pages. Is it your version of events, or is it mine?

Even my version accepted that he wanted blank pages (the issue was whether he was so specific as to say "at least 20 pages").

Ike

[Observer]

Is this a ringing endorsement of Bongo's mental faculties in the mid-1970s, or a post-hoc rationalisation of what she had gone and done?

It's a ringing endorsement of Bongo's mental faculties in the mid-1970's

[Observer]

Sad Magpie Bastard. I'm sure you can work out our retort, very much along those lines (I don't want to swear, so I'll just say it rhymes with 'hack 'em').

Haha, never heard that one before. I'm afraid the retort alludes me.

It was entirely unintentional. By homing-in on the only problematic year in the set, I had attempted to prevent people responding along the lines of "Why would a diary dated 1880-1889 be a problem?" which would have served only to distract and to quickly unravel any attempt at logical reasoning I was making.

Yes errr of course.

But your preference is irrelevant. As I argued so brilliantly in my brilliant Society's Pillar, what is relevant is whether or not there is a reasonable alternative interpretation of the facts. In this case, the possibility that Barrett needed blank pages in order to create a copy of the original to take to London (it wouldn't matter that the handwriting would be his as he would produce the original as soon as the London People showed interest in coughing up the moolah) provides the reasonable alternative which cocks your preference immediately into a right old snoop.

You keep banging on about Society's Pillar, are you sure it's not a whipping post you've created for your own back?

Everyone's preferences are irrelevant. However each and every one of us can form an opinion as a result of examining the evidence. So let me put it before those easily led casual watchers to this forum those with a limited grasp of the case. Which of the following is more likely?

1. That Barrett bought the maroon coloured diary in order to perpetrate the hoax that is The Maybrick Diary? Bear in mind he asked for at least 20 blank pages, and that he paid £25 for the privilege, quite a sum in those days for Barrett considering his financial situation.

or

2.Barrett went to the considerable expense, for his meagre income, to buy the diary to copy the contents of the original scrapbook because he was fearful it might get nicked or lost.

Why could he not have just bought a jotter at WH Smiths for a couple of bob and saved the 25 quid he spent on the diary?

Really Ike, "reasonable alternative" I beg to differ in my opinion your version is rather silly. My snoop is intact.

You'll probably reply in some smart ass manner to the above, but as you say our preferences are irrelevant to each other. Each has his or her own preference, so let's leave it to those casual visitors of this forum, the one's with a limited knowledge of the Maybrick saga, to make up their own minds. We wouldn't want to mislead them would we?

Obviously, I have no idea how the conversation went down, but the critical bit is neither does Lord David Orsam nor his evil acolyte rjpalmer ('gardening' is a famous euphemism for 'burying the bodies', by the way). So we need to call canny before we start using invented conversations to determine the truth of any matter.

Ike

The undeniable truth in this matter is Barrett obviously stipulated that he wanted a diary with blank pages. What the individual has to determine is why he wanted a diary with blank pages. Is it your version of events, or is it mine?

[Iconoclast]

I should say 'impulsive' behavior, not so much 'compulsive.' I would like a serious answer to Mike's alleged stroke, however. Are people suggesting this was faked? That it wasn't real? I am genuinely curious.

As a matter of interest, if Mike did not have a stroke would that undermine the argument that his confession was the truth only badly-remembered? Or would you (and others) simply shift the responsibility for the confusion onto his evident alcohol-dependence?