The One Where James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper

[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

[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.

[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]

Very well said there Ike!


The Baron

The fear of being wrong doesn't ruin us.

What ruins us is the lack of fear of being wrong.

[The Baron]

The fear of being wrong doesn't ruin us.

What ruins us is the lack of fear of being wrong.

Very well said there Roger!


The Baron

[John Wheat]

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

Yes Ann Barrett did have a hand in the creating of the text in the Maybrick scrapbook.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike.

I'm not going to spend any more time on this, but I do want to explain why I can't buy into Caz's theory that Anne Graham lied to everyone around her because Feldman promised her millions.

Why would Anne think that Feldman could deliver on such a promise? How would claiming to have seen the diary in the 1960s rehabilitate the thrice-debunked hoax to the extent that it would have allowed the film deal to proceed? It certainly didn't accomplish any such thing. Most people didn't believe her, and the film was never made.

Was Feldman just going to hand Anne gobs of money to make this claim?

If it was a backroom deal with Feldman, one would have expected Anne to have endorsed his crazy theories...but she didn't. She wore two faces--accommodating Feldman's ideas when in his company (as evidenced in the interview with Paul Daniel of the Ripperologist) but openly dismissing or even disparaging his ideas behind his back. She didn't give Feldman's ideas any significant support when she appeared on the Bob Azurdia Show.

By undermining Barrett's confession, and giving marginal lip service to Feldman's theories, she could have conceivably hoped that the film deal might send a small percentage of royalties in her direction, or increased book sales, but there is a major problem. As Caz has told us a zillion times, Anne had previously turned down her royalty checks, and these would have been in the thousands of pounds. That doesn't sound like a woman with a money motive.

It sounds like a woman terrified of being linked to Barrett's hoax.

And if the diary was just something Barrett had brought home from the pub, how could she have been confident that the true owners wouldn't resurface or be traced, leaving inches of egg on her face? If she truly believed that Barrett had nicked the diary ('did you nick it, Mike?') it would have been foolhardy to proceed down this path.

I think the circumstantial evidence all points in one direction and that direction isn’t under Paul Dodd’s floorboards. If the art shop Barrett pointed out didn't sell an iron gall ink with nigrosine and chloroacetamide, he would have fallen flat on his face. But it did. It was Barrett who went shopping for a blank Victorian diary in the weeks before London. It was Barrett who identified 'O Costly' when no one else could. It was Barrett who told the Cloak & Dagger Club that he had only read one book on the Maybrick case--Bernard Ryan's. If he had said Christie or Moreland or MacDougal he would have again fallen on his face.

Barrett nearly jumped out of his skin when the police found his copy of Tales of Liverpool had been in Tony Devereux's possession. Why would he have done that? It wouldn't have bothered him in the slightest if the diary had come from Eddie. Hell, he would have been overjoyed as it showed his interest in Maybrick preceded the events of March 1992.

And the account Mike gave in his secret, non-circulating confessional affidavit matches the ten/eleven-day timetable that David Barrat recreated, but it is borderline ludicrous to think that Barrett could have worked it out (or had hoped that someone else would work it out) since he couldn’t even remember what year it was. Baxendale's solubility test, as interpreted by Dr. Nickell, also supports Barrett's claim. And, personally, I think Anne's behavior is consistent with being dragged into the hoax by Barrett.

But none of this will rise to the level of ‘proof’ that will satisfy you and Caz. That's a given. You want CCTV footage of the hoaxers in action, and that day will never arrive. And I seriously doubt Anne will ever come forward and reveal what she must surely know, so you're safe to weave whatever theories you want.

You can rest easy.

[Iconoclast]

RJ, this is what you quoted over on the false-dichotomy thread which I refuse to post to:

Originally posted by caz View Post
Melvin could have got it 'out there' by sending copies to Feldman, Shirley, Keith, Robert, Doreen and every newspaper in the land and the Barretts could have done nothing about it.
This is a smokescreen, by the way.

Then you said:

Barrett's secret, non-circulating affidavit was lodged with his solicitor and would have been protected by attorney/client privilege. Melvin would have known that.

As everyone knows, it is my role in life to ensure that none of my dear readers are pivoted away from the facts of the matter in all things Maybrick. It is also my more informal role to ensure that you, dear RJ, are protected from your own worst instincts. For both those reasons, I would like to remind all who read here that they may well have a twisted legal system over in the land of Yankee-Doodle-Dandy, but over here in the calm waters of the sane UK courts, the only people burdened by attorney-client privilege are - in fact - attorneys (solicitors or lawyers to those on the right side of the Pond).

So Barrett's solicitor could not release Barrett's detailed and exhaustive confession but anyone with a version which was already in the public record could clearly do so. So that's Michael Barrett. Oh, and Anne Barrett/Graham. Oh, and Alan Gray, Ace Detective. Oh, and one Melvin Harris, Viper to the Court of Queen Elizabeth.

So this secret, non-circulating confession was already in the hands of five people, only one of whom could do nothing with it even if he or she wanted to. The viper Harris - pumped full of righteous integrity (not) - had no legal restrictions whatsoever on him and therefore had he wanted to reveal Barrett's game changing claims to the world he was completely at liberty to do so.

And yet he did not.

Dear readers, this is because he read it and said, "Oh FFS, what a pile of utter mince that was" and shoved it in a drawer, hoping no doubt that everyone else who owned a copy would do the same. RJ has made this outrageously egregious (not the archaic one, by the way) claim that Harris' hands were tied in order to attempt to explain why Harris did nothing with the hand grenade Alan Gray had promised him for Christmas. It won't do and I am here to protect you all from such claims - at all times vigilant on that wall you want me on, you need me on, to defend Uncle Sam and his denizens from being believed when they shouldn't be.

No, honestly, you're all welcome.

Colonel Ike

[rjpalmer]

And yet he did not.

Dear readers, this is because he read it and said, "Oh FFS, what a pile of utter mince that was" and shoved it in a drawer, hoping no doubt that everyone else who owned a copy would do the same. RJ has made this outrageously egregious (not the archaic one, by the way) claim that Harris' hands were tied in order to attempt to explain why Harris did nothing with the hand grenade Alan Gray had promised him for Christmas. It won't do and I am here to protect you all from such claims - at all times vigilant on that wall you want me on, you need me on, to defend Uncle Sam and his denizens from being believed when they shouldn't be.

Hi Ike,

the reason you're not posting over on the original thread is that the temperature got too hot following the revelations I previously mentioned.

Harris could have conceivably released a copy of the affidavit without serious legal ramifications---this is perhaps true---but let me clarify by stating that doing so would have had every appearance of coercion: talking Barrett into filing a confession with his solicitor, only to turn around behind Barrett's back and release it without the permission of either Barrett or the solicitor. And lo, and behold, this never happened, so I hold Melvin's ethics in far higher regard than you and Caz do, and all of this is neither here, nor there.

Bringing in Melvin Harris is a smokescreen by you and Caz, an example of what you refer to as the "old switcheroo."

Melvin's motivations were not what was being discussed.

I was referring to Mike's motivation for his secret, non-circulating affidavit. Mike signed the affidavit--not Melvin, and Melvin's theories or opinions about the worth of the affidavit are totally irrelevant.

Since you have badly lost your bearings, let me remind you of the original point under discussion.

The claim is that Barrett's affidavit is bogus. This naturally raises the question why someone would create a bogus confession that harmed their own financial interests.

It was argued (chiefly by Paul Begg and Keith Skinner) that Barrett 'hated Feldman' and would have done anything to destroy him. Creating a bogus confession, Keith argued, would have done that. This allegedly bogus confession would have derailed Feldman's film deal (which, in truth, was already derailed).

This was the theory. It Mike Barrett's motivation I was discussing, not any speculations about Melvin's.

Thus, my questions still remain unanswered.

If Barrett created a bogus confession to destroy Paul Feldman why didn't Mike circulate it? Melvin doesn't come into play (and he didn't circulate it either, at least not initially, so Caz's commentary was irrelevant).

What is the point of creating a bogus confession to destroy Feldman if Mike only kept it lodged with his solicitor?

And if this was Mike's motivation, why then did Barrett deny the affidavit's very existence when asked about it on the Bob Azurdia Radio Show a few months later?

Here was Barrett's big chance to use this allegedly 'bogus' confession to 'destroy' Feldman and Barrett instead denied its very existence and, when pressed, lied about the content of the affidavit, and instead insisted the diary was real.

Obviously, Paul and Keith's theory about the affidavit does not work.

Little wonder, then, that Caz instead turned the discussion to Melvin Harris and his motivations and inactions.

Melvin Harris's contemporary opinions about the affidavit do not concern me. As I've already stated, I think Melvin was just as wrong as Keith Skinner and Paul Feldman about the diary's authorship.

Mike and Anne were not the handlers of a hoax created by others, nor is the document an old hoax, nor is it genuine.

RP

[rjpalmer]

Dear readers, this is because he read it and said, "Oh FFS, what a pile of utter mince that was"

Dear Readers,

this is the first time, and perhaps the only time, that Caz and Ike have argued that Melvin's assessment of the evidence was authoritative and not open to challenge...

Imagine that! At all other times Melvin was a dunderhead (in their view) but we should believe him this time.

In reality, I'm not entirely convinced that Melvin's opinions didn't change over time.

A question that perhaps only Stephen Ryder can answer: who sent Stephen a copy of Mike's allegedly bogus confessional affidavit so he could make it public for the first time on this very site sometime around 1997/8?

I'd be surprised if it wasn't Melvin. If so, he must have seen some worth in it.

[rjpalmer]

Creating a bogus confession, Keith argued, would have done that.

I should clarify this. Keith didn't actually claim that Barrett's secret confessional affidavit was bogus, though from all I've seen, he apparently believes it was.

The implication was that Barrett confessed to 'get back' at the hated Feldman. That's what I'm disputing as nonsensical.

Here is the relevant passage from Mike's interview on the Bob Azurdia Show (Liverpool) on 20 September 1995.


BA: Well now, you did say earlier on that you had not signed any other affidavits at all or any other -

MB: The only affidavit I did sign which I think this is where the misconception is, arose, is that I had, I made an affidavit saying that I do not and will not believe Anne’s statement until it is explained and I had the evidence in front of me that she did give the evidence - the diary to Tony Devereux. You see, when you are in a position where I’ve never been able to prove provenance of the diary, everything is vital important to give to my credibility, it is vital and when you are not armed with this particular evidence and you are not armed with the appropriate documents. how - it doesn’t put me in much standing.

BA: But is it not the case that on the 5th of January this year you signed a statement, you actually signed a statement in the solicitor’s office in Dale Street in Liverpool to the effect that your wife, Anne, had physically written the diaries, you provided the information for her to write and the two of you together with Tony Devereux had conspired the whole thing?

MB: No, that is totally incorrect whatsoever.

BA: But you surely signed that?

MB: I signed a statement but somewhere along the line the statement has gone totally out of the – where it has gone out of line, I signed a statement stating quite categorically that I did not believe Anne’s story and that is the only statement I have signed and I don’t even remember that was on the 5th January to be honest with you because I was so adamant that I will not accept Anne’s story until they have sat down and I’ve seen the documented evidence in front of me and I think it’s very vital that I see the documented evidence that, er, that, er, sorry, Graham, Florence Maybrick, had an illegitimate child called Graham. I have yet to see that document evidence.

BA: But is it not possible that perhaps you didn’t read what you were signing?

MB: Well I didn’t.

BA: You didn’t read what you were signing?

MB: No, I didn’t read what I was signing.


-

Strange behavior for a man who made a false confession in order to derail Feldman.

And Mike's claim that he didn't read what he was signing is obviously bogus. We've heard the tapes where Gray and Barrett discussed the material that appeared on the subsequent affidavit.

[Iconoclast]

The truth of the situation is that no-one can know with any great certainty why someone else does or did what they do or did. Given Mike Barrett's situation in the middle of 1994 and onwards, we can surmise that he held grudges against X, Y, or Z because that would be easier than looking inward and blaming himself for his predicament but there are no guarantees and never now will be. Given Mike's comments a year later at the Baker Street meeting, I would certainly subscribe to the notion that Barrett held grudges against Feldman, but - again - you can never know for certain.

I'll need to come back to your post above, but - in the short term - could you remind me on which of the many tapes Gray and Barrett discuss the material that the two of them subsequently put into 'Mike's' affidavit? No problem if you can't - I'll add it to my long list of things to check one day (when I have time).

[Iconoclast]

Melvin Harris's contemporary opinions about the affidavit do not concern me. As I've already stated, I think Melvin was just as wrong as Keith Skinner and Paul Feldman about the diary's authorship.
RP

This is an interesting comment, RJ. Who does Keith claim the scrapbook was written by?

Ike