The One Where James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper

[rjpalmer]

Ike,

I've been accusing Anne Graham of helping Mike write the diary for ten years or more and her solicitor has yet to send me a cease-and-desist letter.

Wasn't there a court case in 1998 where the jury believed Barrett and not Anne Graham?

I don't want to be accused of reading the mind of the jury but imagine losing a 'he said/she said' case to Mike Barrett!!

[rjpalmer]

Hi John,

While you listen to Ike lecturing about 'unevidenced belief,' it might be worth flipping through Society's Pillar to remind yourself of the sort of stuff that Ike considers 'evidence.'

At one point, I think he has Maybrick predicting the final score of last week's Newcastle United v Leicester City football match.




4 - 0 is indeed a "win" but it is also a loss, and wouldn't a true football fan write it "blamed for nil"???

You might sit this one out, Ike.

[The Baron]

I think you'll find that serious commentators do not use the ad populum fallacy to support their arguments. This is because serious commentators are aware that relying on popularity is almost always a way of overcoming a lack of actual evidence to support their argument. If you have evidence, you present it. If you don't, you presume it. Can you imagine how seriously serious commentators would take someone today who stood in the marketplace preaching that the Sun rotates around the Earth? And yet in a time when this was the 'obvious' solution to the question, it was the popular opinion. Obviously, the popular opinion was wrong, and that really is a warning from history to serious commentators.

It's also very telling about the strength of your personal beliefs in this matter that you need to argue that other people believe them too so they must be right. Why don't you simply believe them because you have rationalised them for yourself? If you are so sure, why do you need the reinforcement of others, patting you on the back, 'Liking' your posts? To me, a belief is a belief independent of the scale of support around me.

Back in the 1950s, a researcher by the name of Solomon Asch ran an experiment where three lines were shown the left of a screen and one line shown on the right and then he asked 15 observers one by one to state which one on the left (A, B, or C) were the same length as the one on the right. The first fourteen gave the same answer, but they were in on the research and they knew it was the incorrect answer. Further, the answer they gave was clearly the wrong answer. The stooge - the fifteenth observer - would generally become progressively agitated by what they were witnessing and more often than not when it came to their turn they would simply agree with the previous fourteen! The power of the human mind to seek comfort in conformity, eh?

When I was in primary school aged about ten I hated the music classes as I was utterly tuneless. One day, the teacher asked - desk by desk - who had not understood what he had just been talking about. He was a big, scary guy and no-one wanted to cross him so table after table the hands stayed down until it came to my table. My hand went up. I didn't care what he said or did to me - I knew what my belief was and I wasn't going to be influenced. He was impressed by this and - based on it - he went right back to the start. Every hand went up the second time.

The fear of being wrong ruins us, John, and the first sign we might be wrong is when we look around at what others believe and feel comforted if it looks similar to what we do. None of that is valid on any level except the psychological and serious commentators know this.

Very well said there Ike!


The Baron

[Iconoclast]

No you are wrong it clearly suggests that Ann Barrett was involved in the writing of the Diary. I think you'll find that the great majority will agree with my opinion. I think with your opinion though you are in a minority of about three people.

I think you'll find that serious commentators do not use the ad populum fallacy to support their arguments. This is because serious commentators are aware that relying on popularity is almost always a way of overcoming a lack of actual evidence to support their argument. If you have evidence, you present it. If you don't, you presume it. Can you imagine how seriously serious commentators would take someone today who stood in the marketplace preaching that the Sun rotates around the Earth? And yet in a time when this was the 'obvious' solution to the question, it was the popular opinion. Obviously, the popular opinion was wrong, and that really is a warning from history to serious commentators.

It's also very telling about the strength of your personal beliefs in this matter that you need to argue that other people believe them too so they must be right. Why don't you simply believe them because you have rationalised them for yourself? If you are so sure, why do you need the reinforcement of others, patting you on the back, 'Liking' your posts? To me, a belief is a belief independent of the scale of support around me.

Back in the 1950s, a researcher by the name of Solomon Asch ran an experiment where three lines were shown the left of a screen and one line shown on the right and then he asked 15 observers one by one to state which one on the left (A, B, or C) were the same length as the one on the right. The first fourteen gave the same answer, but they were in on the research and they knew it was the incorrect answer. Further, the answer they gave was clearly the wrong answer. The stooge - the fifteenth observer - would generally become progressively agitated by what they were witnessing and more often than not when it came to their turn they would simply agree with the previous fourteen! The power of the human mind to seek comfort in conformity, eh?

When I was in primary school aged about ten I hated the music classes as I was utterly tuneless. One day, the teacher asked - desk by desk - who had not understood what he had just been talking about. He was a big, scary guy and no-one wanted to cross him so table after table the hands stayed down until it came to my table. My hand went up. I didn't care what he said or did to me - I knew what my belief was and I wasn't going to be influenced. He was impressed by this and - based on it - he went right back to the start. Every hand went up the second time.

The fear of being wrong ruins us, John, and the first sign we might be wrong is when we look around at what others believe and feel comforted if it looks similar to what we do. None of that is valid on any level except the psychological and serious commentators know this.

History tells us that if one or two or three people make an argument which runs counter to the norm, we should all at very least consider the evidence which underpins it before we disregard it.

So, on that note, what evidence regarding Anne Barrett has led you (and more or less everyone else according to you) to believe that she had a hand in creating the text of the Maybrick scrapbook?

Ike

[John Wheat]

And I imagine that Caz stands by her excellent response to your completely unevidenced belief.

Her response was neither excellent or logical.

[John Wheat]

What you've said is an opinion, John, to which you are entitled and welcome.

I don't personally think it's a logical opinion, based on the body of evidence. And I am no less entitled to my opinion.

Love,

Caz
X

No you are wrong it clearly suggests that Ann Barrett was involved in the writing of the Diary. I think you'll find that the great majority will agree with my opinion. I think with your opinion though you are in a minority of about three people.

[Iconoclast]

What you've said is an opinion, John, to which you are entitled and welcome.
I don't personally think it's a logical opinion, based on the body of evidence. And I am no less entitled to my opinion.
Love,
Caz
X

I - for one - am not terribly surprised that the vast majority of people assume the Barretts created the scrapbook. They are convinced it is a hoax and there is absolutely no other 'plausible' candidate or candidates for the role so the Barretts it is, regardless of the complete lack of meaningful evidence to support such a convenient belief.

If ever there comes a day when we find out that actually the Maybrick scrapbook is indeed a hoax, you can bet your mortgage that the Big Reveal will not include any mugshots of the dastardly Barretts. It will need to be a post-1987 hoax, of course, so I remain hopeful that - if hoax it be - that the villain or villains will still be alive as I will have one or two pertinent questions to put to them ...

[caz]

I stand by what I've said. It suggests Ann Barrett was involved in the creation of the Diary and to think anything else is not logical.

What you've said is an opinion, John, to which you are entitled and welcome.

I don't personally think it's a logical opinion, based on the body of evidence. And I am no less entitled to my opinion.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

I stand by what I've said. It suggests Ann Barrett was involved in the creation of the Diary and to think anything else is not logical.

And I imagine that Caz stands by her excellent response to your completely unevidenced belief.

[caz]

You’re too modest, Swami Brown.

In the next sentence you demonstrate your ability to read Anne’s mind, telling us it was all for the promise of Feldman’s filthy lucre.

I wouldn’t care to join you on the tightrope you’re walking. On one hand you have Anne willing to deceive for money, but on the other hand you quickly dismiss the idea that she would hoax for money.

The distinction is too subtle for my little brain.

I did nothing of the sort. I didn't need to read Anne's mind to know for a fact that she claimed the diary had been in her family, and that Feldman had promised her a financial reward in return for her signature. It's not exactly walking a tightrope to revisit facts that were established years before the diary was a twinkle in my eye.

I don't know if the money influenced Anne and nor does Palmer. But his brain might benefit from not constantly reading into people's words what isn't there on the page.

I never even suggested that Anne would not have created a hoax 'for money' - or for all the tea in China if Palmer prefers.

She's either the sort of person who would create a hoax or she's not. I have seen no evidence for it, but Palmer has to argue that she is that sort of person, because he has nobody else to pin the diary's creation on. I don't know who created it and neither does Palmer, but the difference is that I have no need or desire to pin it on anyone. Palmer can have absolutely no idea whether Anne would ever have considered doing something like this - for any reason. It's not a great starting point. That's presumably why he begins at the end, with a conclusion that she did it, and then has to work backwards to look for any scraps he can use to support it.

[John Wheat]

It's the Lechmere theory wearing a thin disguise. His 'discovery' of a freshly killed woman suggests to some people that he was involved in her murder and to think anything else would not be logical.

It may suggest to you that Anne helped create the diary, but the evidence for this is conspicuous by its absence.

Love,

Caz
X

I stand by what I've said. It suggests Ann Barrett was involved in the creation of the Diary and to think anything else is not logical.

[caz]

No it suggests she was involved in the creation of the Diary. To think anything else is not logical.

It's the Lechmere theory wearing a thin disguise. His 'discovery' of a freshly killed woman suggests to some people that he was involved in her murder and to think anything else would not be logical.

It may suggest to you that Anne helped create the diary, but the evidence for this is conspicuous by its absence.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I'm not a miracle worker. How can I make this make sense when it has just come fresh from Palmer's own imagination?

If I have declined to explain Anne's behaviour - because only Anne knows.

You’re too modest, Swami Brown.

In the next sentence you demonstrate your ability to read Anne’s mind, telling us it was all for the promise of Feldman’s filthy lucre.

I wouldn’t care to join you on the tightrope you’re walking. On one hand you have Anne willing to deceive for money, but on the other hand you quickly dismiss the idea that she would hoax for money.

The distinction is too subtle for my little brain.

[John Wheat]

It suggests that possibility, John.

It doesn't demonstrate that the Barretts had to be involved in the creative process, and there is no handwriting evidence that suggests it.

Love,

Caz
X

No it suggests she was involved in the creation of the Diary. To think anything else is not logical.

[caz]

It does suggest she was involved in the creation of the Diary though.

It suggests that possibility, John.

It doesn't demonstrate that the Barretts had to be involved in the creative process, and there is no handwriting evidence that suggests it.

Love,

Caz
X