Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Iconoclast]

I know it's been discussed ad nausea but why specify 20 blank pages if the object of the exercise was to merely take note of what a Victorian diary looked like?

The alternative argument is that he wanted to copy the scrapbook to take to London in case he was accosted by one of those Cockney ruffians like Oliver Twist and had the original stolen from him - so he decided to use an actual 1880s (or even 1890) diary for this purpose. Hence, he needed some blank pages at the end.

[Iconoclast]

Gentlemen,

I really do hate to wee-wee all over Ike's Tyke fireworks, but I really do think that the record gate for a Third Division match is held by the Aston Villa v AFC Bournemouth game on 12 February 1972 - 48,110. Naturally, Villa won 2 - 1. I was there, half-way up the Holte End having my ribs snapped one by one. Ted McDougall scored first - as he would - but Vowden equalised then Andy Lochhead got the winner. Probably the best game I ever saw at Villa Park.

Graham

Shoot the marketing guy at Sunlan, Graham. He said it in 'Sunlan 'til I Cry', though in retrospect he may have referred solely to League One (another idiot who thinks football was invented in 1992).

[Observer]

I specified 1890, Observer, because - of the years 1880 to 1890 - that is rthe only one which makes a mockery of the argument that Barrett was planning to use it to create what ultimately became the scrapbook. You should trust me, Observer - I may be an SMB (as are you, in a different form, of course), but I am super-rational when I need to be.

I love that rjp - doffing his cap to Lord Orsam - has decided that Mike Barrett definitely didn't specify the wording of Earl's advert, and that he did not mention 1890, and that Earl thought the 1880s included 1890. Just me being super-rational again here.

I need to be quick - I sense some footy-related posts coming up and they're far more interesting!

Cheers,

Ike

First of all the abbreviations fly thick and fast around these parts, what's an SMB?

Also, the fact remàins that by failing to reveal the true nature of the advert, and only mentioning "why did Barrett advertise for an 1890's diary" when in actual fact the advert specified 1880-1890 , you broke your own cardinal rule of trying to influence the casual browser, (with limited knowledge) to this forum.

Furthermore, seeing as he asked for at least 20 pages Mr Palmers analysis of the situation makes perfect sense to me.

[Iconoclast]

First of all the abbreviations fly thick and fast around these parts, what's an SMB?

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').

Also, the fact remàins that by failing to reveal the true nature of the advert, and only mentioning "why did Barrett advertise for an 1890's diary" when in actual fact the advert specified 1880-1890 , you broke your own cardinal rule of trying to influence the casual browser, (with limited knowledge) to this forum.

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.

Furthermore, seeing as he asked for at least 20 pages Mr Palmers analysis of the situation makes perfect sense to me.

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.

By the way, rjpalmer's strategy of inventing a conversation which never happened between Earl the Bookseller and Bongo the Barrett very much cuts both ways. If we can assume that the advert was entirely Earl's invention based upon the presumed conversation he had with Barrett beforehand, the conversation could have gone somewhat more like this:

BONGO: I'm after a genuine Victorian diary.
EARL: Jolly good. Any particular year, sir?
BONGO: Well 1888 or 1889 would be great but any diary from the 1880s would do at a push.
EARL: Very good, sir. And is this diary to be blank or used?
BONGO: Oh, it needs to be blank - I'm planning to write in it.
EARL: I see, sir. [Thinks: A little bit late but what the hell.] Does it need to be entirely blank or can it be partly used?
BONGO: Partly used is okay. Some unused pages at the back are what I need. Maybe ten or twenty?
EARL: Fine, sir, I shall get right on it. [Thinks: If I can be arsed - I'll be lucky to make a tenner out of this one.]

[Two days later, Earl remembers to get right on it]

EARL: [Thinks: Oh what the hell was that rubbish bit of business that Scouse lad brought to me the other day? A diary from 1880-1890, yes; and it has to have some unused pages. He didn't say specifically how many and some of these things are really quite small so I'll say at least 20 - that should suffice. He'll never see the advert so who cares?]

By this means, the confusing 1890 and the specific request for at least 20 pages are actually irrelevant as they would have stemmed from the irrelevant Earl rather than the very relevant Barrett. We would all be arguing the toss over what some old duffer thought he heard two days earlier.

Now, if Barrett needed the blank pages to write a copy of the actual scrapbook, we don't need this exchange between Earl and him, but it does at least serve to remind us that what we assume is sacrosanct (1890, at least 20 blank pages) may be far from it.

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

[Iconoclast]

I have my boots on, and I'm out the door, but first, I found what I was looking for....

In regards to Mike's imbecility:

"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.

Nothing whatsoever about an imbecile in a tinfoil hat, just off the short bus from Merseyside.

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?

[Graham]

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

[Iconoclast]

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

Of all the scary thoughts in this scary world right now, that one is right up there with the viral best of them ...

[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?

[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?

[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

[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

[Iconoclast]

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

Ah - that clears the confusion up ...

[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

[Graham]

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

Nor the first scrap-metal dealer, either.

[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.