|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through May 08, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 08, 2001
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 02:57 pm |        | Hi, Yaz:
Enjoy your bungee ride. Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
To correct one impression in your post, I don't think that Anne Graham/Billy Graham knew they had any connection to the Maybricks until Paul Feldman arrived on the scene and suggested that they had such a link to the notorious Maybricks. Does anyone have any information to suggest that the Grahams thought they were so connected before Feldy began his enquiries? I am talking here now of anything other than statements made by Billy Graham to Feldy or other than Anne's statements made following her "it's-been-in-the-family-for-years" confession.
Chris George |
Author: Mike David
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 03:12 pm | | Paul writes:
'As you seem to acknowledge, what you have quoted from John Omlor is a denial that he had ever suggested that the ‘diary’ was as likely to have been written by Mike as by anyone else in the whole world. This was something he never said. I never said it either. Karoline made it up.'
I would hardly say that anyone 'made it up' when the thing John is denying is the inescapable conclusion of everything he has been saying here for quite a long time.
John, you have repeatedly said that there is no evidence whatsoever for Mike Barrett's complicity in the forgery. But if this is so he must be no more likely a suspect than anybody else. This is what evidence means. If he is to be considered more likely than any randomly chosen adult UK citizen, this can only be (assuming a remotely sane methodology) because there is evidence to this effect.
But now that at last we are in agreement that there is evidence that Barrett is more likely to have been involved than any randomly, etc, - can I take you one step further and ask, do you think he is more likely than anyone else?
If not, whom would you rate as a more or equally likely suspect, and why?
Cheers
Mike |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 04:12 pm | | Mike,
Once again reading carefully is always important. I have said that there is no physical, material or reliable evidence whatsoever that would allow us to decide between several still equally possible scenarios, some of which imply Mike's complicity and some of which do not imply Mike’s complicity.
That's what I have said. And I have concluded from this that therefore we cannot fairly or justly or responsibly claim yet whether Mike Barrett is likely to have forged this document (no evidence that would logically allow us to decide in favor of his complicity, you know) or whether Mike Barrett is likely not to have known of this book's origins (no evidence that would logically allow us to decide in favor of his non-complicity, you know).
That is what I have said. Period.
This is the only valid conclusion afforded us by the evidence we do have so far and the possible and conflicting and equally likely ways of reading that evidence that are available.
This is completely and utterly different than simply saying that "there is no evidence whatsoever for Mike Barrett's complicity in the forgery." There is evidence that might be either evidence of complicity or non-complicity, depending on how we decide to interpret it. To interpret it fairly and accurately in each case, it turns out that we need more reliable and material evidence that would allow us to choose in favor of complicity, and we do not have that evidence. Do you see?
Consider the diary transcript on the wp. The initial fact is that the transcript of the diary appears on a word processor owned by Mike Barrett. This at first seems like evidence that implies Mike's complicity. He must have composed the diary there, we are told.
But, it turns out that we have no idea when this transcript was put onto this disk in the word processor and that it is just as likely that Mike and Anne transcribed the text of the diary they were already holding onto the machine for the purposes of making and distributing copies and for research and to prevent Mike having to carry the original document everywhere and for any number of other possible reasons. We don't know and, more importantly, we have no evidence of this "when," that would allow us to say we know or even to choose one alternative as more likely true than the other. The point is we have no indication whatsoever and no evidence whatsoever exactly when or why or how the text was typed there. Without this necessary further evidence, our original evidence (that the text appeared on Mike's machine) cannot in any way fairly or responsibly be said to be simply evidence that Mike was complicit. Do you see this? Because the time and the circumstances of the transcript's production remain completely unknown and unevidenced in any way, the existence of the transcript cannot yet fairly or responsibly be said to be evidence for or against Mike as a forger. We must be responsible when we read and evaluate what the evidence actually tells us and does not tell us, you know.
You say: "If he is to be considered more likely than any randomly chosen adult UK citizen, this can only be (assuming a remotely sane methodology) because there is evidence to this effect."
Hell, Mike, only because he walked into Doreen's office carrying the book, he becomes more likely, I suppose, to have been involved in its production than the average random citizen. But that is saying nothing at all. And it is certainly not in any way, shape, or form, the same thing as saying he is likely or probably a forger. Really, it's not. Not at all. You see?
Finally you ask: "Can I take you one step further and ask, do you think he is more likely than anyone else?
"If not, whom would you rate as a more or equally likely suspect, and why?"
Mike, the only intellectually honest and logically valid answer available to this question remains the one I have been giving all along. I have no idea yet. I cannot claim to have any real idea yet, since the evidence and the lack of evidence clearly does not allow me to make such a claim yet. There is still much too much that we don't know. Does Kane's handwriting match? Did Mike ever know or meet Kane? what was Mike's intent when he bought the little maroon diary? When did the text first appear on the wp? When did the Barretts first obtain the Sphere volume? When did Mike first see the Crashaw quote? I could go on and on and on, but then Chris will become angry with me. Trust me, this list of still unanswerable questions is much, much longer than the list of things we do know about Mike and Anne and their involvement in this forgery or the tiny, tiny list of things that we do know about this book's real origins.
So I can only give you one responsible and honest and logically valid answer. I do not know yet who is likely to have forged this book. I cannot know yet who is likely to have forged this book. Period.
 And I'll go further and tell you that it is completely unwise and irresponsible and logically dangerous to just go about naming suspects as likely forgers, since this is precisely how some people around here jumped to and assumed the as yet unwarranted and invalid conclusion that Mike is likely to be guilty, and that is after all, the very conclusion whose fairness and justness and validity we are still trying to determine here and so, if you just assume that one, the game is over before it begins and our arguments and our analyses become circular and therefore meaningless, empty and completely, historically worthless. So we must, at all costs, avoid just pronouncing suspects to be likely or probable forgers without real, reliable and necessary evidence to support our suspicions and our conclusions about who is or is not more likely to have researched and written this document than whom.
This is a vitally important thing to avoid and your last question is a very important question not to answer. If our analysis of the available evidence is going to have any hope at all of being objective and fair and unbiased and untainted and honest and open, then we must, at this point, scrupulously avoid answering your question at all costs.
But thanks for asking it,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 04:49 pm | | Mike,
One other small thing.
At the beginning of your last post, you suggested to Paul that the idea that Mike Barrett is no more likely than an absolute and random stranger to have participated in this forgery is "the inescapable conclusion of everything [John] has been saying here for quite a long time."
This is, you know, quite ludicrous.
It is nonsense. It is perfectly bizarre and reveals an apparently serious lack of any careful reading of my words.
Nothing I have ever written anywhere even suggested this (let alone made it an "inescapable conclusion") and I have repeatedly and regularly written explicitly that I thought Mike and Anne must remain, of course, suspects in this case. And yes, if you like, I can give you a long list of times and dates and specific citations where I said exactly this in precisely these terms. I would not say this, of course, and have never said this about random strangers. Mike, I do wish you would read what I write. If you think you have, show me a single instance where I said or even suggested or implied that Mike Barrett was no more likely to have been involved in this forgery than a random or perfect stranger. Or that he should not be considered a suspect. Just one.
I have, however, said that it is not yet fair or reasonable or logical to claim that Mike Barrett has probably forged this document, that he and Anne are clearly likely to have participated in this forgery.
Once again, please read:
I have never written that Mike is no more likely to have forged this diary than a random stranger or than I am. Never.
I have written that we cannot yet claim that Mike and Anne are likely or probably forgers.
These are two completely different sentences. They mean two completely different things. Please try and understand this simple difference.
Thanks for reading,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 06:36 pm | | HI Chris and Martin,
Please help a deprived American. Is there a specifically English cultural or childhood reference behind "Bongo?" I used to play them in a band or two and in studio work to put myself through school (along with congas, timbales, and other instruments of Latin Percussion -- it is my one real, studied, musical talent). And I know the chimp allusion (and thereby the accompanying allusion to questionable intelligence) and the beatnik allusion and even the Howard Stern allusion (which I am sure Tony was not making). But I wonder if I am missing out on some peculiarly Anglophilic one.
Clue me in.
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 06:50 pm | | I don't think Bongo meant anything but a silly clown's name like Coco or Bozo. I don't know whether Tony Devereux was old enough to remember the song 'Civilization', which would have been likely to introduce the word to him before small paired hand drums enjoyed their moment of fashion -
'Bingo bango bongo
I'm so happy in the Congo
I don't want to go!'
But I do think that, without necessarily creating elaborate scenarios, it is always well to consider the reasonable inference that TD didn't have the highest opinion of MB's common sense and maybe intelligence. Which needs to be born in mind if the two are postulated as co-conspirators, or TD is proposed as a forger who used MB as placer. Or anything else that involves the two of them (including Anne's 'confession').
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Mike David
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 08:54 pm | | John wrote:
"I have said that there is no physical, material or reliable evidence whatsoever that would allow us to decide between several still equally possible scenarios, some of which imply Mike's complicity and some of which do not imply Mike’s complicity".
May I ask you two questions here:
1. How many equally possible scenarios do you see? Could you tell me what they are (briefly)? and how many different individual people they involve?
2. Define if you could precisely what you mean by "physical material, reliable" evidence.
I think we need to have our terminologies exactly clear.
This is completely and utterly different than (sic) simply saying that "there is no evidence whatsoever for Mike Barrett's complicity in the forgery." There is evidence that might be either evidence of complicity or non-complicity, depending on how we decide to interpret it. To interpret it fairly and accurately in each case, it turns out that we need more reliable and material evidence that would allow us to choose in favor of complicity, and we do not have that evidence. Do you see?
Reading this and other things you write, I suspect you are, as Martin has suggested, confusing "evidence" with "proof." It seems to be the only reading of your arguments that can make them at all rational.
It is, for example, a logical absurdity to assert that the evidence of the Sphere book can't be accepted as implying the probability of Barrett's involvement in the forgery since on pure mathematical measurements of probability alone it clearly does (unless we begin invoking the power of synchronicity!)
What it doesn't do is prove Barrett's guilt. And if we take out the word 'evidence' from all your postings and replace it with the word 'proof,' then we can read into them a modicum of rationality. However in their present condition your observations on this and all related matters present merely a muddle of hopeless contradiction.
"Consider the diary transcript on the wp. The initial fact is that the transcript of the diary appears on a word processor owned by Mike Barrett. This at first seems like evidence that implies Mike's complicity. He must have composed the diary there, we are told. ...But, it turns out that we have no idea when this transcript was put onto this disk in the word processor and that it is just as likely that Mike and Anne transcribed the text of the diary they were already holding"
Again, John, we have your confusion over proof and evidence. I accept entirely that the issue of the word processor is proof of nothing, but it is evidence which is at best in equipoise (balanced fifty-fifty in its potential interpretation), but which taken in conjunction with Barrett's lies to the police and Shirley Harrison can be easily read as an indication of guilt.
And of course statements like "just as likely" are meaningless in any objective sense. You might consider the two possibilities equally likely, but I might not. Who is to say which of us is "correct"? Is it necessary to condemn those who disagree with you?
"We don't know and, more importantly, we have no evidence of this 'when,' that would allow us to say we know or even to choose one alternative as more likely true than the other."
Well, there is the fact that Barrett claimed to have composed the diary on his wp. We might doubt his word and be justified in doing so. I certainly do. But it is still evidence material to our understanding of how the text got on the wp.
"Hell, Mike, only because he walked into Doreen's office carrying the book, he becomes more likely, I suppose, to have been involved in its production than the average random citizen."
Forgive me but I think you are now completely contradicting yourself. You began your post by claiming there was no "material physical evidence" of Barrett's likely involvement in the forgery. Yet now you are quoting the fact that he "walked into Doreen's office carrying the book", as making him more likely to have forged the diary than the average citizen.
Isn't this a piece of "material physical evidence"? And if it makes him more likely than the average citizen to have forged the diary, then how does it square with your other claim that there is nothing to indicate his guilt?
If it makes him more likely than the average person to have committed the forgery, then it makes him more likely that 99.99999997% of the world's population. That bare fact is enough to create a considerable probability in favour of his guilt.
How many other individuals in your view can be shown to be equally likely to have done the deed? One? ten? a hundred? You must have some idea.
"And I'll go further and tell you that it is completely unwise and irresponsible and logically dangerous to just go about naming likely suspects, since this is precisely how some people around here jumped to and assumed the as yet unwarranted and invalid conclusion that Mike is likely to be guilty....."
Do you not think this is a rather silly overreaction? According to Paul Begg in a recent post this board is dedicated to working out who might have forged the diary, how do you suppose that discussion can proceed without names being put forward as possibilities? I don't think anyone has claimed the case is solved, so what is the problem?
And again I perceive your own fatal confusion between evidence and proof and the fatal internal contradictions to which that confusion brings you. You condemn others for asserting the likelihood (not the fact, just the likelihood) that Barrett was a forger, yet then accept that because he walked into Doreen's office with the document he is more likely than the average person to be a forger.
You establish with this one statement that he is more likely than virtually everyone else who was alive at the time to have done the deed. Unless you can likewise name an individual who is shown to be even more likely than Barrett then you are forced by your own prior conclusion to admit that Barrett is the most probable suspect at this time, and since this is all that either Karoline or Peter have been saying, I am at a loss to comprehend the nature of either your indignation or the reasoning that gave birth to it.
cheers
Mike |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 10:32 pm | | Hi Mike.
OK, with apologies in advance to Chris, let's take this slowly and I'll try to be very brief with each individual comment or answer.
You begin with two fair questions:
"May I ask you two questions here:
"1. How many equally possible scenarios do you see? Could you tell me what they are (briefly)? and how many different individual people they involve?"
That depends on which issue or item of data you are discussing. For the diary purchase for instance there are at least two probable and equally likely scenarios, one which implies innocence (Mike gave his real name and address, therefore Mike "probably" was not planning very shortly to use this very same book for a criminal purpose) and one implying guilt (Mike might have given his real name and address, but he was being stupid and he still planned to use the book to forge the diary in).
Of course, we do not know if Mike already had the finished diary in his hands when he bought this one -- we have no evidence at all that he did or that he did not -- consequently we cannot fairly or reliably choose which of the two unreasonable scenarios is more likely.
For other items, the Crashaw quote and the diary transcript's existence and Mike's relationship with Tony and with Kane and Anne's provenance stories and others, there are at least two or more likely scenarios and in each case the evidence that would allow us to choose fairly which one is more likely remains absent.
You then ask:
"2. Define if you could precisely what you mean by 'physical material, reliable' evidence"
I mean real evidence of some material or physical or at the very least reliable sort that would at least allow us to decide between possible and likely scenarios, some of which imply complicity and some of which imply non-complicity.
You continue:
"Reading this and other things you write, I suspect you are, as Martin has suggested, confusing 'evidence' with 'proof.' It seems to be the only reading of your arguments that can make them at all rational."
I do not remember Martin claiming that I am doing this, but if you offer the citation I will be happy to respond to him as well as to you. I seem to recall him saying that my analysis of what evidence is available and what questions remain still completely unanswerable does indeed support my logical conclusion that we cannot claim that Mike and Anne are or are not probably forgers ("nothing neither way," I believe he wrote, in a literary allusion) and therefore it would seem inconsistent of him if he claimed that I was mistaking evidence for proof. Or perhaps you have not read closely again and allowed your own desires to get in the way of what someone's words actually mean. That would be a bad habit to get into.
No, I am not confusing "evidence" with "proof." I am not speaking at all about proof. I have never spoken about proof. I do not think the question of "proof" is even relevant to this discussion yet. Once, a long time ago, Karoline wrote that Mike and Anne's complicity was "established beyond a reasonable doubt," but other than that I have not seen anyone speak of proof. I am speaking of evidence of some reliable sort that would at least allow us to decide which of equally possible scenarios is more likely to be the truth. This would not be proof, this would be evidence that would help us in our decision making and analysis. This evidence is missing. I know what the difference is between evidence and proof. I know the logical distinctions here, believe me. There is no proof of anything concerning the identity of the forgers. There is precious little real reliable physical or material evidence concerning the identities of who actually researched and composed and wrote out this volume. What evidence there is remains inconsistent, contradictory, fragmented and impossible to draw legitimate and reliable and logical conclusions from as of yet about the identity of the forgers. I could demonstrate this in each and every case yet again but that would waste valuable bandwidth and I like to think that you can go back and read my earlier work carefully. There is no confusion there between evidence and proof. There is no discussion there whatsoever of proof of any kind of anything at all.
You go on:
"It is, for example, a logical absurdity to assert that the evidence of the Sphere book can't be accepted as implying the probability of Barrett's involvement in the forgery since on pure mathematical measurements of probability alone it clearly does (unless we begin invoking the power of synchronicity!)"
Mike, please tell me. When did Mike Barrett first see the Crashaw quote? When did he first know it was even in the Sphere volume? Please answer these questions.
If you cannot answer these questions with even a likely answer; if you do not have even a little bit of evidence that would allow you to even suggest an likely answer to these questions, then it is not only not a logical absurdity to claim that the book itself does not clearly imply Mike's likely guilt as a forger, it is a logical necessity to claim this, until you know more.
And I have already said at least six separate times that I think the quote is the one physical and material piece of evidence that we have that at least suggests Mike's complicity. The only one. Every other item on Karoline’s famous lists and every other item I have seen you or anyone mention is much less clear and consistent and much more open to multiple possible readings of a contradictory nature and therefore much less reliable evidence of any sort.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever, Mike, that would properly allow you even to suggest when Mike typed the transcript onto his machine and why, or if Mike ever met or knew Kane, or why Mike bought the little diary and gave his real name and address? Do you? Any evidence whatsoever? Just one piece that would allow you answer these questions fairly and responsibly? No? None? See? This is my case.
But you continue:
"However in their present condition your observations on this and all related matters present merely a muddle of hopeless contradiction."
Show me even one. Or else this characterization is random and worthless since it is not supported by any textual evidence whatsoever.
But you try later, I'll give you credit for that. You fail, but you try.
But we're not there yet.
Here's your next reading:
"Well, there is the fact that Barrett claimed to have composed the diary on his wp. We might doubt his word and be justified in doing so. I certainly do. But it is still evidence material to our understanding of how the text got on the wp."
OK -- let me understand this. You are actually now suggesting, in all seriousness that Mike Barrett's claim, in his thoroughly discredited confession, that he composed the diary on the word processor can be considered "evidence material to our understanding of how the text got on the wp."
This barely deserves a response. Surely you realize why this is a huge logical error. If Mike's statements have been clearly and thoroughly discredited (and you yourself in this very paragraph imply that they are not trustworthy) then how can you honestly and legitimately and in good faith cite this as reliable or meaningful evidence of anything. Think of what you are saying Mike. This makes no sense.
Anyway, that's enough about that unfortunate assertion. Let's read on:
You now write:
"Forgive me but I think you are now completely contradicting yourself. You began your post by claiming there was no "material physical evidence" of Barrett's likely involvement in the forgery. Yet now you are quoting the fact that he "walked into Doreen's office carrying the book", as making him more likely to have forged the diary than the average citizen."
If this is your attempt at finding a "contradiction" in my work, it fails miserably. There is no contradiction here at all, because you have obviously not read carefully what I wrote. I will have to reproduce it word for word and demonstrate that there is no contradiction. Sorry.
Reading, Mike. It is important.
Let's go back and read my words, since you obviously did not do so closely.
I wrote:
"I have said that there is no physical, material or reliable evidence whatsoever that would allow us to decide between several still equally possible scenarios, some of which imply Mike's complicity and some of which do not imply Mike’s complicity."
and then I wrote:
"This is completely and utterly different than simply saying that 'there is no evidence whatsoever for Mike Barrett's complicity in the forgery.' There is evidence that might be either evidence of complicity or non-complicity, depending on how we decide to interpret it. To interpret it fairly and accurately in each case, it turns out that we need more reliable and material evidence that would allow us to choose in favor of complicity, and we do not have that evidence. Do you see?" [my emphasis]
Now you tell me that I wrote:
"there was no 'material physical evidence' of Barrett's likely involvement in the forgery."
Please read, Mike. That is specifically what I did not write and what I explicitly and plainly and clearly told you I was not writing. I said there is no material evidence that would allow us to decide between similarly likely and possible scenarios some of which imply complicity and some of which imply non-complicity. There is evidence. It is contradictory and inconsistent and open to interpretations that remain possible and that make choosing impossible without purely random and uninformed speculation. Please read my words.
Sure, Mike's ownership of the book makes him more likely than me to have written the diary. So what? Sure, it can be considered reliable evidence that slightly increases the likelihood that he wrote it rather than that I wrote it. So what? This is irrelevant to our discussion. This is not a contradiction at all. My original statement cited above still stands and is still true regardless of whether Mike is more likely than a total stranger to have written this book. Think about this logically and you'll see that that fact in no way at all alters my original claim that it is unfair and irresponsible to claim that Mike is likely to be the forger. Since that is a completely different claim.
The original claim was not that Mike was more likely than a random stranger to have written the book. The original claim was and still is that Mike was in fact likely to have written the book or helped to write it -- that Mike and or Anne probably participated in this forgery. This is a completely different claim (see the painfully obvious demonstration below). This latter claim is unjustified and unevidenced and unwarranted so far. The fact that Mike owned the book and is therefore more likely than me to have written it does not change that one little tiny bit. The claim that Mike Barrett probably wrote the book remains completely unwarranted and not yet a logically valid one. Can you understand this?
You go on, responding to my warning about jumping to conclusions about suspects and their likely guilt:
"Do you not think this is a rather silly overreaction? According to Paul Begg in a recent post this board is dedicated to working out who might have forged the diary, how do you suppose that discussion can proceed without names being put forward as possibilities? I don't think anyone has claimed the case is solved, so what is the problem?"
But this is precisely the problem, Mike. People may not have proclaimed the case solved, but they have claimed that Mike and Anne probably wrote or helped write this book -- that this is likely to be true. And they have claimed this without the necessary evidence to establish such a conclusion. Unfortunately this is simply and fatally assuming the very conclusion (the probable identity of the forgers) that we are investigating and this renders their arguments circular, and logically worthless. If you start out assuming that someone probably did it, your analysis of the evidence will not be honest, untainted, fair or reliable. It will be "blinkered." It will assume its conclusion and then fit a reading of the evidence to that conclusion. You want a demonstration of this? Fine.
Mike orders a diary. He gives his real name and home address. I suggest that this might be seen as suggesting he was not planning to use it shortly thereafter in a criminal conspiracy. I am told "Nonsense, Mike was just being unreasonable and illogical as he usually is. He is probably guilty." OK, I say, what if Mike already had the diary and bought the new one for comparison as he was trying to determine authenticity? "Nonsense, I am told, Mike wouldn't do that. That would be being illogical and unreasonable."
You see Mike - fitting the reading of the data to the conclusion of guilt even if it means deliberately and demonstrably contradicting oneself. This is why we need to be careful about claiming that someone likely or probably committed this crime when we do not have the evidence to properly support our claim. It is irresponsible and illogical.
You then actually write:
"And again I perceive your own fatal confusion between evidence and proof and the fatal internal contradictions to which that confusion brings you."
No, you don't. And the fact that you cannot actually, textually demonstrate any contradiction proves this.
But you trudge on:
"You condemn others for asserting the likelihood (not the fact, just the likelihood) that Barrett was a forger, yet then accept that because he walked into Doreen's office with the document he is more likely than the average person to be a forger."
Yes.
Mike. Think.
Claiming that Mike is more likely than a random stranger to be a forger is not at all the same as claiming that Mike is likely to be a forger.
It's not the same thing and you appear unable to see the obvious difference.
Look:
1.) Mike is more likely than I am to be the forger.
2.) Mike is likely to be the forger.
Can you see the difference?
They are two different sentences with completely and totally different meanings.
There is no inconsistency at all on my part. I agree with #1 (it is obvious and can be obviously established) and I disagree that #2 has been in any way fairly or logically or responsibly or validly established.
This is not a contradiction. In fact, I think I can demonstrate clearly and logically that this is true. (Don't worry, Chris, I won't again.)
Finally, still apparently unable to grasp this simple difference, Mike, you write this:
"Unless you can likewise name an individual who is shown to be even more likely than Barrett then you are forced by your own prior conclusion to admit that Barrett is the most probable suspect at this time,"
Nonsense, I can simply claim the responsible truth, which is that we do not yet have the ability to confidently name a single most probable suspect in this case. Nor do we need to yet. And unless you can show me reliable evidence that would fairly and logically allow me to name with any confidence a clearly most probable suspect, I think you have to admit this is true. However this is not even Peter and Karoline's claim.
You write:
"and since this is all that either Karoline or Peter have been saying,"
No, it's not. They are not simply saying that Mike is the "most probable suspect." That would be a much more debatable claim (though not necessarily a telling or interesting one at the moment.) They are not simply claiming this. They are clearly and repeatedly saying that Mike probably participated in this forgery. That is a different claim all together. And it is unwarranted and not logically valid or responsibly evidenced.
Finally, Mike, you sign off:
"I am at a loss to comprehend the nature of either your indignation or the reasoning that gave birth to it."
No doubt.
Sorry Chris, I hope you see why this was necessary,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 11:16 pm | | Hey,
I had a thought.
Let's try it this way and see if it is clearer for you, Mike.
I am 5'4" tall. (therefore definitely not over 6'6")
I do not know how tall you are.
Here, at this point in my analysis, is a true sentence:
1.) You are more likely than I am to be over 6'6".
(Since I am definitely not and you at least might be, I don't know.)
Now, here is another sentence.
2.) You are probably over 6'6".
If I do not know how tall you are, is this second sentence necessarily true? Does it even mean the same thing as the first sentence? Can I claim it yet? Most importantly, can I claim it from the first sentence?
No, of course not.
Now, try this:
I did not forge the diary.
(I think I can prove this one.)
I do not know if Mike forged the diary.
(you admit at least this).
Here is a true sentence:
1.) Mike is more likely that I am to have forged the diary.
(since I definitely did not and Mike might have, I don't know.)
Here is another sentence:
2.)Mike probably forged the diary.
Is this second sentence therefore necessarily true? Does it even mean the same thing as the first sentence? Can I claim it yet? Most importantly, can I claim it from the first sentence?
No, of course not.
Does that help?
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 03:24 am | | Hi Chris
A question asked many times ages and ages ago was how sophisticated one thought the ‘diary’ was; that is to say, how much effort, if any, went into trying to create something that would pass as a genuine Victorian ‘diary’. The question got caught up in the same mess we're in now, but it is one that might help resolve the question you and Martin posed. So what does the evidence of the ‘diary’ itself tell us, are we looking at a document that was created and was expected to survive expert examination? Or are we looking at something that was supposed to fool no one but a layman? Which, if either does the data suggest?
An associated question that might have a bearing on the matter is whether or not the ‘diary’ was created during Tony Devereux’s lifetime. For example, R.J. Palmer thought that Devereux’s possession of the RWE book suggested some sort of complicity.
And depending on how sophisticated you think the 'diary' is - and I mean in the sense of the awareness shown by the forger - is it consistent with somebody coming up with such a dumb provenance as ‘I got it from a dead man’? Could Mike really have got the 'diary' from Tony Devereux? Would such a possibility - if derived from the evidence, not just a speculative theory -resolve problems that are created by other scenarios? |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 07:21 am | | Maybe one of Paul's last questions, if traced right the way back to the early conferences on the diary, may demonstrate to Mike and others that there isn't a solid phalanx of emotionally committed Barrett allies lined up and cheering John on against the reasoned counter-charges of Peter and Karoline and RJP.
How sophisticated do we think the diary is? How much awareness do we think the forger could have shown? Obviously Shirley believes that if there was a forgery, it was a very sophisiticated one with great awareness of all or many of the pitfalls. In fact, she's on videotape as saying that if it ever is exposed as a forgery and the forger identified, her first (and typically good-natured) remark would be, 'Well done, chum!'
On the other hand I have thought from the outset that the work was unsophisticated, unconvincing, and unaware of the sorts of questions a historically sophisticated forger would immediately have confronted. The bad spelling and solecistic grammar and syntax persuaded me that it lay well within the limitations of somebody stupid enough to offer as provenance, 'My friend gave it to me and wouldn't tell me what it was. He's dead now.' (Of course, as Paul Begg has rightly pointed out, I've only met Mike Barrett twice, and never saw him at his best before the drink took over. So I can't object to those who say at the time of delivering the document to Doreen he was not as dim as a Toc H lamp and would have known that the provenance would seem suspicious to other people, and would have made up something better).
There are those who think Mike could have had something to do with the creation of the document, but Anne certainly didn't, and vice versa. There are those who believe Anne's 'confession', and those who think it is a pack of lies. I certainly hold, with Peter, Karoline, RJP and Mike, that the Barretts have not lifted the cloud of suspicion from themselves, either individually or as a pair, and that no such suspicion can be directed at anyone else. But this does not in itself mean that knowing more facts might not make it obvious that A.N.Other was far more likely to be involved than either Mike or Anne. Some people think that either Mike or Anne - maybe even both (given the way Mike's original story fits Anne's confession) - have told stories that effectively clear them of forgery, and seem persuasive on personal grounds to people who know one or both well and have done from the start of the enquiry. This has to be kept in mind as the open possibility that some historical explanation with no such snags exists.
So there are people holding very different positions offering argument to the Barretts' prosecutors. The agreement among us is that despite the weight of suspicion against them, there is absolutely no logical proof that they rather than A.N.Other either forged the diary or consciously fraudulently put it on the market. Some of us actually think they did or may have done. Some of us don't. But we aren't prepared to turn an 'I think...' into an 'It must be so...'
The other thing which concerned me when I first looked at these boards some time back was the contemptuous and dismissive tone adopted toward Shirley and Keith (especially) for refusing to join the 'Barretts must have done it' chorus. The implication that either was a dishonest or incompetent researcher was, I knew untrue, even though I profoundly disagree with the conclusions they were and are reaching. This seems to me to have changed very much for the better; RJP in particular is arguing points in a way that I don't think can be faulted for personalities, and setting aside some recollection of a past flare-up, so I think is Peter.
Taking the Barretts and their various statements as a starting point remains the most sensible way to look for the truth about the diary. This was certainly Shirley's original approach (combined, of course, with her urgent need to master the history of the Whitechapel and Maybrick cases quam celerrime). And her work was tragically pushed on one side by the emergence of Feldy and his appalling interview techniques upsetting apple carts right, left and centre in Liverpool. While the minutiae of the purchase of the little red diary or the exact date of Mike's deposit of the Sphere book with his solicitor have a relevance that escapes me - (essentially because I don't WANT to know about them, so please don't explain!) - no doubt they may help to ascertain some higher degree of probability one way or the other. In my parenthesis, perhaps, you see where I am differing from John O's challengers. Like them I have made up my mind that the diary is a forgery, and it seems completely unlikely that anything may emerge to change that opinion. (It certainly won't be affected by little red diary or crashaw poem evidence). Like them I think one or other or both the Barretts probably had something to do with its production. But I simnply don't care enough to want to force other people into agreeing with my 'I think'.
And as I perceive his arguments, John O is in a very similar position, and definitely more concerned about being confronted with illogic than he is with pressing the guilt OR innocence of Mike and Anne.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 08:30 am | | Hi Martin,
I agree with nearly all of what you say above. Especially about the differences in people's take on the diary's sophistication.
Let me pin you down a bit on one thing. You write:
"Some of us actually think they did or may have done. Some of us don't. But we aren't prepared to turn an 'I think...' into an 'It must be so...'"
Are "we" even prepared yet to turn an "I think" into a "probably did" or "likely to have committed this crime?" I'm not. And I think I can demonstrate logically why such a "probably did" (as in "Anne and/or Mike probably did forge this diary.") remains a premature claim based on the little reliable and clear and consistent evidence that we have so far. Agreed? You said "one or other or both the Barretts probably had something to do with its production" in your post above, but you also said you had no interest in convincing others of this "probably did," so I wondered if you thought this "probably did" had been clearly and reliably and logically and fairly yet established as a likelihood or whether it was still just a speculative thought or feeling of yours at this point? It is not really that important since you have no desire to convince others of this position, but I thought I'd ask in case you felt like explaining it.
[By the way, did you really say I was confusing "proof" with "evidence"? Mike said you did but I must have missed it if you did. I'm not, you know. I know the difference and stand by my careful analysis of the evidence that is available and what it allows us to fairly and logically decide so far. I have said nothing about proof, and can't imagine "proof" even being yet relevant. Do you think I am laboring under such a simplistic confusion, or was this wishful reading on Mike's part? Just wondering. Either way is fine with me at this point.]
Anyway: concerning the sophistication of the diary. We have here a clear problem of the gap between reading and the writer's intent. You and Paul might very well both be right, even though you are saying opposite things. It may be that the diary is sophisticated in its unsophistication. The spelling errors and grammar and syntax problems may be deliberately designed to give this diary an unsophisticated appearance, the appearance of a man going mad or well into addiction. In this case your reading would be correct but it would not make the forgery less sophisticated. I'm not quite sure how we'd know this, of course, since meaning inevitably exceeds intention, but it's worth further discussion at least. As of now, I'm not really sure.
Here's my initial take: the diary seems to me less than sophisticated in its dramatic construction. The voice may be deliberately cheesy and semi-literate to represent the addled thoughts and diminishing skills of a mad addict and the research may at least have most of the facts and some of the non-facts (a modicum of sophistication there perhaps, I don't know). But the drama of the thing and the well-constructed and artificial narrative of beginning, middle, end and rising action/falling action does not seem to me to be a very sophisticated attempt to accurately reproduce the movements of daily entries and of a life being lived. It is too neat and too linear. There is very little "literary" sophistication about this forgery. That is what I have noticed. But I reserve the right to reconsider this, as it is only an initial judgment.
In any case, I think you are fair in your summary of positions above. And yes, as I said early yesterday morning, I do not particularly care if it is eventually proven that Mike and/or Anne did or did not forge this diary. I have nothing whatsoever at stake. Either verdict will suit me fine. I do care that we remain fair and reasonable and logical in our examination of the evidence and in not simply assuming our conclusion before it is fairly established and in not contradicting ourselves and in conducting close, detailed, patient and scholarly readings and investigations. I always care about that. This is what makes me, no doubt, a complete pain in the ass.
Thanks, Martin,
--John |
Author: Mike David
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 08:49 am | | John,
I have very carefully read your last and all your previous posts, and I'm afraid I suspect you are currently attempting to present a very partial and muddled personal view as some form of serious mathematical or logical analysis. This I consider rather unwise.
Let me make it clear that I have no difficulty with accepting all variations and shades of opinion, providing they are clearly presented as that - opinion. But I do have a great ethical difficulty in accepting someone trying to sell their own viewpoint as if it were a dispassionate analysis, and claiming that anyone who differs from that viewpoint is guilty of either "careless reading" or blinkered thinking.
You have patronised a number of people here, and your catch-all comment on anyone who finds your arguments less than persuasive is to claim they have not read you carefully. It seems to be impossible for you to imagine that a person might read you very carefully indeed and actually find you muddled, partial, illogical and poorly reasoned.
I have to say that I do not share your own optimistic and aggrandized view of your own analytical powers. Indeed it appears to me that your grasp of the mathematics of probability is rudimentary, and that your understanding of syllogistic logic is similarly incomplete.
You say, for example that Barrett's mere ownership of the diary makes him more likely to have forged it than anyone who cannot be shown to have owned it. Yet you also claim this does not make it "likely" that Barrett forged the diary.
But the second part of that statement is logically meaningless. "Likely" is a meaningless concept unless it is in a comparative context. Yet you display no awareness of this.
The same point is even more clear in your recent imprecise analogy based on relative heights.
You present this syllogism:
"I am five feet four; I do not know how tall you are; therefore you are more likely than I to be over 6'6""
This is perfectly sound reasoning. But you waste it all by asking the logically meaningless question: "does this mean you are probably 6'6"?
The mere fact that you can ask this question betrays a want of proper syllogistic training. As with "likely" , "probably" is a word without meaning unless used conmparatively.
The only logically valid question you could ask on the matter is: "are you more likely than - [BLANK] - to be 6'6"?
And similarly the only logical question to ask about Barrett is not "did he probably forge the diary"? but "is he more probable as a forger than - {BLANK]"?
I hope you can see your way to understanding that.
Neither do you seem to realise the importance of your statement that Barrett's ownership of the diary makes him per se more likely to have forged it than anyone who cannot be shown to have owned it. Indeed you very oddly claim this fact is "without meaning".
Let me explain for you if I can:
If Barrett is more likely to have forged the diary by simple virtue of his ownership then this makes him a more likely forger than anyone who cannot be shown to have owned the diary. Which would be approximately 99.9999997% of the population of the UK, or if we include Billy Graham and Devereux as two more possible owners this figure would be 99.9999993%.
In other words Barrett, Anne Barrett, Billy Graham and Tony Devereux would all share a 99.9999997% probability of being involved in the forgery.
This is the base probability figure into which the various strands of data must be factored.
Let's begin with the most significant - the Crashaw quote.
As we know there are only two places where that quote can be found to begin at the line "O costly intercourse of death": the Sphere book and the 'diary'.
The odds against one person owning both of these by pure chance are pretty long. I don't have any exact figures for the print run on the Sphere volume (does anyone have such figures?), but let's be generous and assume they ran off 5,000 copies. And lets be generous again and assume that all of them were sold in the UK.
This gives any one of our four "diary-owners" odds of one in 12,000 of owning both the diary and the Sphere volume by chance alone.
And if the print run was smaller then these odds would lengthen considerably. Also of course this very generous estimate doesn't allow for any volumes remaining unsold, or for any being sold abroad, or for those that must have been bought up by colleges and libraries.
Yet here we are, confronted by the astonishing fact that one of the four "owners", Barrett did possess both these volumes.
It is clearly sheer nonsense to claim that the Crashaw quote is "equally likely" to have an 'innocent' explanation as not. There is only an 0.0083% chance of Barrett owning both the diary and the Sphere book by pure chance, and therefore a 99.9917% probability in favour of the "non-innocent" over the "innocent" explanation. Hardly "equal" odds!
Of course that small 0.0083% chance of an "innocent" explanation means the Sphere book isn't proof of anything. But it is a very powerful piece of evidence in favour of Barrett's involvement in the forgery
So, you see. John, that if we examine the data in a genuinely objective logical and mathematical manner there is at this present time a clear indication of a considerable probability in favour of Barrett's being involved in the forgery, based merely on the above considerations alone.
These probabilites can only be overturned by the emergence of negative evidence - that is to say evidence that either presents a measurably great probability that Barrett was not involved in the forgery, or actually proves that he couldn't have been involved in the forgery.
The probabilities cannot be overturned by mere nul evidence - that is to say evidence that neither supports nor refutes the likelihood of his guilt.
Most of the evidence in the case so far, unfortunately is nul evidence. The presence of the text on the wp; the red diary; Barrett's confessions; none of this either supports or contradicts the probability of Barrett's involvement, and therefore it is meaningless to this analysis until further data might clarify the situation.
The only piece of negative evidence I am aware of (that is to say, data which actively demonstrates against the probability of his guilt), is Barrett's total failure to give a convincing account of how the diary was physically forged. This, and only this, is indeed good evidence against the probability of Barrett's involvement in the scam.
But it is only a very slight piece of evidence. Alone it simply isn't enough to act as a counterweight to the huge probabilities conveyed by the Crashaw quotation and by Barrett's simple ownership of the artefact.
So we are left at the current time with incomplete evidence which yet strongly implies the probability that Barrett was involved in this forgery. And this will remain the only defensible logical position until more negative evidence that radically changes the picture, or more postive evidence that puts Barrett's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, happens to be forthcoming.
cheers
Mike |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 08:59 am | | Hi John,
Proof and evidence first. I almost posted a response to that comment, but then decided it would be hair-splitting at the expense of bandwidth. What I was really suggesting was that Karoline might be using the word 'evidence' in the sense of anything that might be presented in a court of law, including suspicious circumstances, and since you were pointing out that these couldn't in themselves prove anything conclusively, you were in effect describing her use of them to draw conclusions as a misleading suggestion that they were logical 'proof'. And I wondered whether either of you were conscious of discussing the same data with slightly different emphases, and whether you couldn't reach equanimity by accepting (courtroom quality) evidence as evidence without suggesting that evidence is proof.
As for 'some of us think they did or may have done,' at this point I simply have to say that some of us - (and while there may be overlap they don't have to be identically the same some) - are going to find our minds are influenced by things that aren't sheer logic. Keith and Shirley, for example, don't hesitate to say that their current opinions are affected by their reactions to Anne Graham as a person. This must include intuitive reading of body language and speech delivery. On the opposite side, given my training and experience in analysing written material and examining historical sources and the provenance of artefacts, I have formed a strong opinion which is now so ingrained that it is more likely to be affected by definite new evidence than by logical argument. (Though I conceded long ago that your arguments had changed my thinking in some respect - I forget what at this point!)
Moreover, an absolute sine qua non in my critical training: even if you thereby prove yourself an absolute fool or completely insensitive, you MUST say honestly what you think and feel about something you are commenting on. Any form of faking your feelings to align with received opinion or some other point of view is absolutely invalidating. (Thus, while acknowledging that my training in the plastic arts is so limited that my opinion is worthless compared with received critical opinion, I always admit that I find Turner a boring painter who seems to me to repeat one trick with light over and over again. I know that this means many/most people thereafter regard my artistic taste as paltry. And lacking the training and experience of superior critics, I don't try to persuade other people to my point of view. But I invariably admit it).
In the matter of the diary, I have no difficulty in starting by saying the heavy suspicion lying against the Barretts is not matched by any equal suspicion against anyone else. And while I know this doesn't follow logically, my intuitive internal deep gut reaction, then, is to treat them as 'probably' guilty until proved innocent. Unfair? Of course. Hopelessly illogical since I couldn't begin to say whether one or other or both is a/the guilty party? Absolutely. Of no possible worth in trying to persuade anybody else? Of course, which is why I don't try to, and am thankful that the whole question of Who Forged It isn't something that matters to me as deeply as it does to others who are disputing the case. But that's the way I am, and people have to judge my contributions with a clear recognition of this logical flaw at the centre.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 09:18 am | | Er... Mike...
You have just addressed the following to John:
'You say, for example that Barrett's mere ownership of the diary makes him more likely to have forged it than anyone who cannot be shown to have owned it. Yet you also claim this does not make it "likely" that Barrett forged the diary.
'But the second part of that statement is logically meaningless. "Likely" is a meaningless concept unless it is in a comparative context. Yet you display no awareness of this.'
May I repeat the syllogistic argument on likelihood I offered you before?
1. Jack the Ripper used a knife.
2. Only a creature with hands can use a knife.
3. A monkey has hands.
4. A bird does not.
5. Therefore Jack the Ripper was more likely to have been a monkey than a bird.
6. Therefore Jack the Ripper (as stated above) was likely to have been a monkey.
The premiss you overlook is the existence of other choices. You rightly say that in the present state of knowledge we cannot possibly state that anybody other than Mike Barrett ever owned the diary. You ignore as if it were of no importance the equal truth that we cannot prove that anybody else who had reached the age of reason by 1990 did NOT own the diary. If that could be proved your position would be correct. But as things are, your argument is precisely that which would show Jack the Ripper to be a monkey because he couldn't be a bird. Other choices render the comparative nature of the probability far from an absolute probability.
As you will see from my posting above, I am saying all this from a position of de facto agreement with your ultimate conclusion. But I profoundly differ from your assumption that the debate so far justifies language like:
'You have patronised a number of people here, and your catch-all comment on anyone who finds your arguments less than persuasive is to claim they have not read you carefully. It seems to be impossible for you to imagine that a person might read you very carefully indeed and actually find you muddled, partial, illogical and poorly reasoned.
'I have to say that I do not share your own optimistic and aggrandized view of your own analytical powers. Indeed it appears to me that your grasp of the mathematics of probability is rudimentary, and that your understanding of syllogistic logic is similarly incomplete.'
Thse are the sort of personalities which will often lead me to seem to be standing shoulder to shoulder with actual and conscious personal defenders of the Barretts (of whom John has repeatedly said and demonstrated he is not one).
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 10:14 am | | Chris,
I really am trying.
Mike,
Since much of your difficulty seems to be only with me, and not with anyone else's position on this board, and since this involves going over again material we have already discussed and others are no doubt tired of reading, might I suggest that after this exchange, and after any response you might like to make, we take this to private e-mail, where I will be happy to continue to explain the logic of my position at great length and you can, "if you please, refuse 'till the conversion of the Jews."
Now, a very brief response (perhaps).
Your first four paragraphs do not actually say anything germane to the case, except that you find my work "muddled, partial, illogical and poorly reasoned."
Since nowhere in your first four paragraphs do you actually offer any examples of this or any reading of my work, I will ignore these paragraphs. They are irrelevant. I am not really interested in whether or not you think I have been patronizing or what you think the state of my knowledge might be.
Then your own analysis begins. Let's examine it. I notice quickly that you have apparently not responded to my claim that saying Mike is more likely than I am to be the forger is not the same as saying Mike is probably the forger. The first sentence is true, the second is what we are arguing about. I assume that you now understand this difference. Let's see.
You write:
"You say, for example that Barrett's mere ownership of the diary makes him more likely to have forged it than anyone who cannot be shown to have owned it. Yet you also claim this does not make it "likely" that Barrett forged the diary."
Yes, this is not a contradiction. I hope you have understood this. I hope...
You then write:
"But the second part of that statement is logically meaningless. "Likely" is a meaningless concept unless it is in a comparative context. Yet you display no awareness of this."
Damn! I was wrong. You've missed it again. Karoline and Mike have written that Mike "likely" or "probably" forged this diary. This is not a logically meaningless claim. They have not only written that Mike is "more likely" than I am to have forged this document. They have written that Mike probably wrote this document. Neither claim is logically meaningless. One is demonstrably true (the first one) and the other is not (the second one). In the sentence you cite, "likely" is being used by them as a synonym for "probably." They have said this. This does not necessarily need a comparative term at all, then, unless you are completely unfamiliar with the common use of "probably." If you are, and you want the implied comparative term, fine -- it would properly be "It is more likely than not that Mike forged this diary." Or, to be more precise: "It is more likely that Mike forged this diary than it is that he did not forge this diary." Or, for "probably" -- "It is more probable that Mike forged this diary than that he did not forge this diary." This is what they are claiming. I can logically say "I am probably going to golf tomorrow." This is not logically meaningless. It means "It is likely that I am going to golf tomorrow." This is not logically meaningless either. They both mean, "It is more likely that I will golf tomorrow than that I will not." You see? This is really very simple. When Karoline and Peter claim that Mike likely forged this document they are claiming that Mike probably forged this document -- that it is more likely than not that Mike forged this document. This is not yet a valid and logical claim based on the available evidence. Simple. Try again.
You do:
You read what I thought was an obvious and clear syllogistic experiment above and conclude:
"The mere fact that you can ask this question betrays a want of proper syllogistic training. As with "likely" , "probably" is a word without meaning unless used comparatively."
Please see the above paragraph. The comparative term is implied in the "probably." "A is probably B." means "A is more probably B than it is not B." "Mike likely forged this document." means "It is more likely that Mike forged this document than that he did not." It does not even mean "It is more likely that Mike forged this document than it is that anyone else we know of so far did." This would be a completely different claim.
Consequently, your next claim:
"The only logically valid question you could ask on the matter is: 'are you more likely than - [BLANK] - to be 6'6"?"
is simply wrong. That is a valid question. But it is a different one. It is not the only one. It is not the proper one in our case. The question I asked is the one Karoline and Peter have actually claimed. Not that Mike is more likely to have forged the book than [BLANK], but that he probably forged this document. That is, that it is more likely that he forged this document than it is that he did not. That is their clearly stated assumption and that is the question I asked in my perfectly accurate syllogism.
Here again is my original second sentence: "2.) You are probably over 6'6"." That is, "it is more likely that you are over 6'6" than that you are not." This is what they are claiming concerning Mike's complicity. This cannot be logically or validly claimed from the premise you agreed with -- that you are more likley to be over 6'6" than I am (since I am definitely not and you might be). Mike is more likely to be the forger than I am (since I am definitely not and he might be). But we cannot therefore claim that Mike is probably the forger (that is, that it is more likely that Mike forged this document than it is that he did not). Patiently, now. Watch:
I am 5'4"
I do not know how tall you are.
1.) You are therefore more likely to be over 6'6" than I am.
2.) You are more likely to be over 6'6" than you are not to be over 6'6".
The first one is true. The second one is not necessarily true and certainly cannot be claimed from the first one.
I did not forge the diary
I do not know if Mike forged the diary.
1.) Mike is more likely to have forged the diary than I am.
2.) Mike is more likely to have forged the diary than he is not to have forged the diary.
The first one is true.
The second one is not necessarily true and certainly cannot be claimed from the first one.
This is why my syllogistic exercise was entirely appropriate and accurate (unlike your reading of it). Try again, please.
You do:
You write, thinking you are going to use math:
"If Barrett is more likely to have forged the diary by simple virtue of his ownership then this makes him a more likely forger than anyone who cannot be shown to have owned the diary."
Anyone? More than, say, Gerard Kane, who we cannot show ever owned the diary but whose handwriting may match it? Anyone? But even if I accept this sticky little suggestion of yours, it does not tell me that Mike is more likely to have forged it than not to have forged it -- that is, that he probably forged it. Does it?
Then there are numbers. They are fun. You write: "In other words Barrett, Anne Barrett, Billy Graham and Tony Devereux would all share a 99.9999997% probability of being involved in the forgery."
You know what. I don't even have any idea whatsoever whether this is even true or not. My calculator is broken. I'm just going to let it slide right by, because it tells me nothing about whether Mike is more likely to have forged the diary than not have forged this diary. I do not believe we can yet make that claim fairly or responsibly and these numbers in no way change this conclusion. I will wave at the numbers as they pass by. Hi, numbers....
Then there are more cool numbers about the Crashaw quote, all concluding in the astounding revelation that:
"It is clearly sheer nonsense to claim that the Crashaw quote is 'equally likely' to have an 'innocent' explanation as not. There is only an 0.0083% chance of Barrett owning both the diary and the Sphere book by pure chance, and therefore a 99.9917% probability in favour of the 'non-innocent' over the 'innocent' explanation. Hardly 'equal' odds!"
Wow. That's remarkable. Hey Mike, when did Mike Barrett first see the Crashaw quote in the Sphere volume? When did he first know it was there? When did he lodge it with his solicitors?
Hey Mike, if Mike Barrett knew the quote was in the Sphere volume when he told the newspaper that he forged the diary, why did he not produce the quote and the Sphere volume and thereby make his case?
Can your numbers answer any of these questions even a little bit? If not, then yes, it remains clearly true that we do not have the necessary evidence to fairly or responsibly or logically conclude whether Mike saw the quote before the diary was composed or that he did not have the quote when he confessed and therefore could only have found it afterwards.
But the numbers never lie and statistics must prove something I guess. I'd still be more comfortable if you'd answer the above questions before claiming that it is more likely that Mike forged the diary and that he knew the quote was there before the diary was composed than that he did not and that's why he couldn't offer it up during his confession when he most wanted to be believed. If you ever prosecute me for a crime, I hope you don't use your probability numbers as evidence of likely guilt.
Onwards. You write:
"These probabilites can only be overturned by the emergence of negative evidence - that is to say evidence that either presents a measurably great probability that Barrett was not involved in the forgery, or actually proves that he couldn't have been involved in the forgery."
Cool! Here's a little "negative evidence" to overturn your numbers. Mike went to a newspaper of record to try and convince them that he forged the diary. If he had forged the diary and lodged the book with his solicitor six months earlier as evidence of this, then he would have known the Crashaw quote was there and could have reasonably been expected to use it to prove his case, right? But he does not. This seems to be negative evidence -- that is evidence that Mike did not perhaps know the quote was there or had not only six months earlier lodged it with his solicitor because he knew it was there. But maybe it's not negative evidence. I don't really know for sure. And still you want to claim that the odds are almost conclusive that Mike knew the quote was there before the diary was composed and knew it was there when he confessed? Hmm. Neat numbers.
But then you say something interesting:
"Most of the evidence in the case so far, unfortunately is nul evidence. The presence of the text on the wp; the red diary; Barrett's confessions; none of this either supports or contradicts the probability of Barrett's involvement, and therefore it is meaningless to this analysis until further data might clarify the situation."
HURRAH! This is a lot more than I could get out of Karoline or Peter. Thanks Mike. You are once again my friend.
Then this:
"The only piece of negative evidence I am aware of (that is to say, data which actively demonstrates against the probability of his guilt), is Barrett's total failure to give a convincing account of how the diary was physically forged. This, and only this, is indeed good evidence against the probability of Barrett's involvement in the scam."
HURRAH AGAIN! I love you more and more Mike. I think. Let me read on...
"But it is only a very slight piece of evidence. Alone it simply isn't enough to act as a counterweight to the huge probabilities conveyed by the Crashaw quotation and by Barrett's simple ownership of the artefact."
DAMN! I was so close. Why do you tease me like that? Mike, if someone gave you a book and you weren't sure it was real so you eventually took it to an agent's for authentication, would the fact that you owned the book mean you probably had written it? It might mean that you were more likely than, say, I was, to have written it; but it would not mean you probably had written it -- that is, that it was more likely that you had written it than it was that you had not written it, right? Please tell me you understand this. Please.
But you conclude:
"So we are left at the current time with incomplete evidence which yet strongly implies the probability that Barrett was involved in this forgery."
But Mike. You yourself just said that the Crashaw quote is the only piece of real reliable evidence of complicity that we have. (Oh yeah, the ownership thing too, which is just silly, that is not reliable evidence of actual forgery, it's just not.) Only the Crashaw quote. And yet you still claim that this single piece of evidence is all we need to say that the evidence "strongly implies the probability that Barrett was involved in this forgery." Man, Mike that is one powerful little piece of evidence, even mitigated as it is by the fact that you have no idea when Mike first saw it or why he could not produce it in his newspaper interview when he needed it to be believed, if he allegedly knew all about it and knew it would make his case.
I don't know Mike. Seems to me the "probability" thing remains a serious problem.
In fact, the only defensible logical position is that the evidence does not yet allow us to fairly or logically claim that Mike probably forged this document -- that it is more likely that he forged it than it is that he did not. We cannot yet make this claim. Peter and Karoline have made it. They have assumed a conclusion and argued from this assumption and that is illogical.
Nothing you have written suggests otherwise.
Now I really think this is becoming just about your trouble with my position and I am satisfied that I have expressed mine clearly for our mutual readership. So I would be happy to discuss this in even more detail in e-mail and thereby save bandwidth, repetition, and our reader's patience. But I am also happy to continue this discussion here as well if you like, if you think it is advancing the case or demonstrating anything that might be particularly useful to others. It's your call either way.
I almost loved you, Mike. Maybe next time.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 10:19 am | | Martin,
Your final paragraph of your first post above is the finest and fairest I have read in a long time. Here it is again:
"In the matter of the diary, I have no difficulty in starting by saying the heavy suspicion lying against the Barretts is not matched by any equal suspicion against anyone else. And while I know this doesn't follow logically, my intuitive internal deep gut reaction, then, is to treat them as 'probably' guilty until proved innocent. Unfair? Of course. Hopelessly illogical since I couldn't begin to say whether one or other or both is a/the guilty party? Absolutely. Of no possible worth in trying to persuade anybody else? Of course, which is why I don't try to, and am thankful that the whole question of Who Forged It isn't something that matters to me as deeply as it does to others who are disputing the case. But that's the way I am, and people have to judge my contributions with a clear recognition of this logical flaw at the centre."
Thank you Martin. This is clear and honest and fair and I appreciate it and admire your writing here.
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 11:42 am | | One little thought.
Whether or not Mike and/or Anne is guilty of writing the ‘diary’. I would personally prefer to see them condemned on something more substantial than a gut feeling or what is, for me, a poor or illogical assessment of the source material. Also personally, though curious about who the forger was and the purpose of the forgery, the identity of the forger isn’t in itself the interest I have in the ‘diary’. I think and have long believed that the long-term importance and real historical significance of the ‘diary’ rests in discovering and isolating the mistakes that were made in and what lessons can be learned from the investigation of the ‘diary’. Knowing the identity of the forgery and history behind the forgery would provide us with the ability to better assess the mistakes and the lessons and separate reality from guesswork. These lessons could help in the future when similar documents emerge in the commercial domain. After all, the Hitler diaries didn’t tell us anything about Hitler or anything of real historical importance, but they did teach us a number of lessons about how not to go about questioned document examination and about the effect a potential ‘scoop’ can have on rational thought and behaviour. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 12:42 pm | | Hi All,
One final thought on what Peter and Karoline have actually said here.
They have both written this specific claim:
"It is likely that Mike Barrett participated in this forgery."
and this one:
"Mike Barrett probably participated in this forgery."
This is not at all the same as saying "Mike is more likely to have participated in this forgery than anyone else we have so far."
This is a completely different sort of claim.
Consider the following sentence:
"It is likely that Jerry's father is a child molester."
or, similarly,
"Jerry's father is probably a child molester."
This in fact means:
"It is more likely that Jerry's father is a child molester than it is that he is not a child molester"
To claim this is not to claim that it is more likely that Jerry's father is a child molester than it is that any unamed and unknown people are.
Again:
"Jerry's father is probably a child molester."
This means : "It is clearly more likely that Jerry's father is a child molester than it is that he is not."
It does not mean: "It is more likely that Jerry's father is a child molester than that anyone else is."
Peter and Karoline have claimed that "Mike probably participated in this forgery." That means therefore, that Mike is clearly now more likely to have actively participated in this forgery than he is not to have actively participated in this forgery.
It is that claim that I am suggesting is not yet clearly or reliably or validly established by the available evidence and the lack of reliable or consistent evidence.
For a happier example consider:
"I am probably correct."
This clearly does not mean I am more likely to be correct than anyone else is.
No. "I am probably correct." means I am more likely to be correct than I am to be wrong.
the same is true for:
"It is likely that I am correct."
This does not mean "It is more likely that I am correct than anyone else is."
This means "It is more likely that I am correct than it is that I am not correct."
This is how it is possible to write "A. is probably B." or "A. is likely to be B." without an explicit comparative term and still have these sentences have logical meaning.
I just wanted to clear that up.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 12:45 pm | | Paul,
Of course, I agree completely.
--John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 01:32 pm | | Martin:
I agree that the diary is by no means sophisticated. I've always seen it as somewhat sub-Stephen King and written in a pseudo-Victorian manner unlike anything else published or unpublished from that period. In fact my first objections to it whilst reading it in the bar of Simi Hills Golf Course were on stylistic grounds: it didn't and still doesn't read right.
Having reread it many times, I do not find any remarkable pieces of research. I would agree with Melvin that the "research" was probably done in two or three popular books although I do suggest that the first edition of the A-Z may have provided a lot of information.
And my opinion of the very basic research and the writing technique is that it could very well have been written within two weeks. Incidentally some time ago you mentioned the murders on Potters Bar Gold Course but they weren't actually committed by golfers who are not noted for being crazed serial killers.
Mike:
I agree with you concerning the posts of John Omlor. I'm afraid that I can't understand this sort of criticism (literary rather than personal) and am just skipping through to see if there's anything that I need to note and then deleting them. I too have a limit to my system memory: I only have 9gb left!
John:
Sorry to be so negative about your very worthy posts but I really am not one of your students and therefore do not have to spend my time being lectured to. I really have tried to follow the first few but have now given up. They were starting to remind me of a very short piece I read some time ago suggesting that Alice was down the rabbit hole for the entire summer because she woke up when a dead leaf fell on her which therefore proved that although she had arrived at the spot in early summer she was actually leaving in autumn. Although these speculations/criticisms keep many professors of Eng. Lit. from sweeping the streets, they are ultimately pointless |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 01:48 pm | | One fact related to how to proceed investigating the diary forgery seems clear:
The Barretts had the diary and presented it for publication (whether directly or via intermediaries such as lawyers doesn't matter right now).
That places them in the epicenter of any investigation as to who, what, when, where, and how the diary came to be created, passed along, with what purpose/intent, etc.
Their centrality cannot and should not be assumed as guilt of anything yet except perhaps being naive, to put it kindly. They may prove to be guilty of forgery or knowingly placing a forgery, but assuming guilt so early in the data-gathering phase may actually interfere with your efforts to "prove" anything -- unconscious/conscious bias is an obvious charge against any eventual claims of guilt, and easily could be avoided.
Let the facts uncovered in a properly conducted investigation speak for themselves once you and every reasonable person believes you have collected all possible information concerning the who/what/when/where/how of this forgery. People can and will argue on the interpretation of these "facts," but your work should be conducted with a strict eye on any conscious or unconscious bias -- at least weakening, if not eliminating, the most obvious counter-argument.
One approach to investigating the origins and intentions surrounding the diary is to consider circles that begin at the most logical extreme and move inward -- proving, on evidence, where/when/how someone is involved from the creation of the diary until it reaches the Barretts.
The logical last circle would start with James Maybrick -- the purported author of the diary (however quickly you may dismiss this point as proven/shown -- or any other "obvious" point -- I strongly suggest you "show your work" to make this unofficial record intelligible to whoever reads it later, leaving readers no opportunity to ask questions or wonder why you seemingly didn't look at X, Y, or Z).
Based on sound evidence you can produce strong, if not unchallengable, arguments ("proof" if you will) that Maybrick did not/could not have written the diary. Work your way inward using time and social/family relationships to define the next circle, then the next, until you have (or don't have -- if the Barretts are both the forgers and placers) the last link to the Barretts.
You could work from the Barretts outwards (ignoring for a moment any assumption that the Barretts are the sole forgers and placers), following the same criteria of evidence, arguments, "proofs."
Only when the picture is complete -- come what may -- can you summarize and present your evidence and arguments and proofs as to what did and did not happen in the life of this diary.
And before looking at textual critique of the diary's content, why skip over the physicality of the diary itself?
Melvin predicted a forgery based on past experience where, if pages are missing in front of the purported "true" text, it is signs of forgery. Wouldn't a "serious" forger know that as well as Melvin does?
What else about the physical book itself lends itself to the idea of forgery or to legitimacy -- or to any hypothetical "professionalism" (also called by me "serious" forgery) or "amatuerism" in the forger?
How difficult is/was it for a "serious" forger to learn the obvious pitfalls in physical presentation? Forgery is not new. Are there obvious "how-to" books avalaible? Or books where detailed descriptions of how a similar forgery was done, and how it was exposed, providing the kind of "how-to" information anyone seriously intending forgery could/would/should have known?
Would a diary, complete with no uncut (missing) pages be initially considered more legitimate than forged even if the book could be proven to be older than 1888?
Would a "serious" forger, lacking an unused diary for 1888, promote initial acceptance if he or she used any unused diary from say before 1888 but not later than 1860 -- widening the opportunity to find such a "clean slate?"
Maintaining the focus on Maybrick as the alleged author, is there any other book that a man in his trade/with his connections in business/etc. that could substitute for a diary if no unused diaries could be found -- again with the sole purpose of removing initial and perhaps obvious doubts as to the document's legitimacy?
And how easy or difficult would it be to find unused examples of these hypothetical alternatives?
If the missing pages (and here I am speaking from hints I've picked up on this thread) contained photographs/cards, would it have been an insurmountable obstacle for a "serious" forger to have replaced the photos/cards of post-1888 origin with more suitable, pre- or contemporary 1888 substitutes?
Yaz |
Author: Mike David
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 02:02 pm | | John,
You write:
"I notice quickly that you have apparently not responded to my claim that saying Mike is more likely than I am to be the forger
is not the same as saying Mike is probably the forger. Let's see."
Alas John, I think you are betraying your own lack of understanding of syllogistic logic - as well (I fear) as your own less than careful reading of my post.
If you look again you will see I responded to that point by showing you patiently that the term "probably" without a qualifier is logically meaningless; that logic can only measure greater or lesser probability than something else.
I speak here as a trained mathematician, statistician and logician, whose job it once was to assess probabilities for legal, insurance and other reasons. I have also worked as an historical researcher. So, I do not think the failure of comprehension in this instance is mine.
I wrote:
""If Barrett is more likely to have forged the diary by
simple virtue of his ownership then this makes him a more
likely forger than anyone who cannot be shown to have owned
the diary."
You replied:
"Anyone? More than, say, Gerard Kane, who we cannot show
ever owned the diary but whose handwriting may match it?"
When the handwriting has been analysed and shown to match it then this data will have to be factored in to the probability equation, and this will certainly alter the figures somewhat. But I am intentionally not considering this data yet, since it hasn't, to my knowledge, been verified.
You write:
" But even if I accept this sticky little suggestion
of yours, it does not tell me that Mike is more likely to
have forged it than not to have forged it -- that is, that
he probably forged it. Does it?"
No, it shows you that he is more likely to have forged it than 99.9999997% of the population fo the UK.
The data on the Crashaw quote suggests he is 99.9917% more likely to be involved in the forgery than not.
"Then there are numbers. They are fun."
They are also the building blocks of the universe, and the basis of all known life, from the simple cell to the complexities of the human brain. They are indeed our means of de-coding God's handiwork in great ways and in small. Better not to patronise them, lest we betray our own limitations of intellect and character.
I wrote:
"In other words Barrett, Anne Barrett, Billy Graham and Tony Devereux
would all share a 99.9999997% probability of being involved
in the forgery."
You replied:
"I'm just going to let it slide right by, because it tells me
nothing about whether Mike is more likely to have forged the
diary than not have forged this diary."
I wouldn't presume to tell you how to read one of your literary essays, so please don't presume to judge and discard a mathematical argument that by your own admission you barely understand.
The mathematics of probability is the assessment of the forces that shape our lives. It is not something that anyone who wishes to be taken seriously as an objective or rational thinker can simply and arbitrarily choose to ignore.
You wrote:
" I do not believe we
can yet make that claim fairly or responsibly and these
numbers in no way change this conclusion. I will wave at
the numbers as they pass by. Hi, numbers.... [ ]"
This is simply unworthy of a serious discussion.
You write:
"Wow. That's remarkable. Hey Mike, when did Mike Barrett
first see the Crashaw quote in the Sphere volume? When did
he first know it was there? When did he lodge it with his
solicitors?"
Again you fail to understand how the calculation of probability works.
The deduction is based on the fact that Barrett owned the volume and that there is no evidence as yet to show he did not own it in 1991.The nul data (absence of any indication of when he obtained the volume) does not impact upon the positive data (he did own the volume). Only the discovery of negative data (he didn't get the book until 1993) will impact on the assessment of probabilities.
"But the numbers never lie and statistics must prove
something I guess. ... If you ever prosecute
me for a crime, I hope you don't use your probability
numbers as evidence of likely guilt."
I'm not a lawyer. I'm a mathematician. I've no wish to defend or prosecute anyone. I just like to get the facts straight and to keep them as separate as possible from any emotional preoccupations we might have, which can cloud our judgement.
"Cool! Here's a little "negative evidence" to overturn your
numbers. Mike went to a newspaper of record to try and
convince them that he forged the diary. If he had forged
the diary and lodged the book with his solicitor six months
earlier as evidence of this, then he would have known the
Crashaw quote was there and could have reasonably been
expected to use it to prove his case, right? But he does
not. This seems to be negative evidence."
If he was asked specifically about this quote and failed to give its correct provenance then this would indeed be negative evidence. But a simple failure to mention the quotation is merely more nul data. It is not possible to determine whether he didn't mention it because he didn't know about it, or because it simply never occurred to him.
Was he asked specifically? if he was, then I will moderate the assessment of probability accordingly.
"And still you want
to claim that the odds are almost conclusive that Mike knew
the quote was there before the diary was composed and knew
it was there when he confessed? Hmm. Neat numbers."
Tell me, if you have no emotional investment in pleading Barrett's innocence then why does my quotation of some simple mathematical probabilites cause you to become so defensive?
"DAMN! I was so close. Why do you tease me like that? Mike,
if someone gave you a book and you weren't sure it was real
so you eventually took it to an agent's for authentication,
would the fact that you owned the book mean you probably had
written it? "
You are the one John, who began this by saying that the mere fact Barrett walked into Doreen's office with the book was enough to make him a more probable forger of the 'diary' than anyone who hadn't done that. You are contradicting no-one but yourself.
"But Mike. You yourself just said that the Crashaw quote is
the only piece of real reliable evidence of complicity that
we have. (Oh yeah, the ownership thing too, which is just
silly, that is not reliable evidence of actual forgery, it's
just not.) Only the Crashaw quote."
Yes, and the statistical likelihood of the "Crashaw quote" happening by chance is 0.0083% . Which means that Barrett is 99.9917% likely to be involved in forging the diary.
I emphasise this isn't proof, merely an objective assessment of statistical probability. But it does give us a clear view of where we currently stand I think.
I am very sorry if this has upset your perceptions of the case and of your own logical interpretation thereof. I would hope you might take the opportunity to learn a little extra knowledge on how an enquiry of this nature ought actually to be undertaken - just as I'm sure I would hope to learn something about reading if I attended one of your classes.
"I don't know Mike. Seems to me the "probability" thing
remains a serious problem."
it is a problem for you John, because you do not seem to understand it. I hope my above words have helped you there.
"In fact, the only defensible logical position is that the
evidence does not yet allow us to fairly or logically claim
that Mike probably forged this document -- "
That is quite simply a total denial of the basic laws of probability as they are understood all over the world. It is a seemingly emotional belief asserted by you without any basis in anything that can be determined by using those laws.
You are within your rights to uphold that belief - but I advise you not to try and claim it as a logical or objective conclusion, for manifestly it is not.
You are correct in one thing however, unless you are at least prepared to accept the validity of universally applied mathematical and logical principles then there is little point in our exchanging any further views.
Cheers
Mike |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 02:56 pm | | Hey Mike:
Are there any legal precedents showing the use of statistical data that were used to gain a conviction (or a release) of any crime? And I must ask that cases based on the mathematical and statistical evidence be confined to cases where there application was not used on manufacturing/production/assembly/engineering processes -- that is, where one task, performed 10,000 times by man or machine, more easily lend themselves to study and conclusions based on mathematics and statistics than crimes based on human motivations and desires, which, you must admit, do not easily or practically lend themselves to study and conclusions based on mathematics and statistics.
A crime is, by its nature, an anomoly from the "norm." Accumulating masses of data on these "anomolies" may produce some useful information; but if it ever has, I'm sure our society would not continue to produce crimes and criminals at such an alarming rate.
We judge every person before the Law as a unique individual, not a statistic. We judge their words and actions on specifics of each, not on their probability.
We are people; not numbers, gadgets, assembly processes.
Therefore, in dealing with a possibly criminal matter, is it wisest to choose mathematics and statistics to prove suspicion, let alone guilt?
Logic in argument is another issue. Arguments should be based on True or False facts, not on probabilities of something being 99.999% True or False. American law uses the measurement "beyond a reasonable doubt," not whether it is more than 99% more likely/probable/etc. Law factors in the Human, and makes the inhuman numbers subservient to the smallest possible questions (as in non-human processes like manufacturing faulty gas tanks) related to issues of Guilt or Non-Guilt. Is a 99.99% failure rate in a brake assembly a crime? Or is the crime a failure on the part of human beings to act responsibly with that data? And can their failure to act responsibly be measured in statistics or with the laws of probability?
And while a poor argument may fail to persuade, is the failure due more to the presentation of the arguments rather than any fault with the facts?
The laws of probability may (or may not) have their use in an investigation, but no prosecutor would ever stand in front of a judge or jury and ask for a verdict saying, "The accused most definitely probably guilty."
Who is the Englishman, a professor of sociology (I believe?), who used criminal profiling based on a form of statistical analysis? I think he gave it up, in part because because he wasn't convinced his system produced reliable results. His case may (or may not) having bearing on the introduction of math and statistics into this type of discussion.
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 03:48 pm | | Hi there, Peter,
You write:
"Sorry to be so negative about your very worthy posts but I really am not one of your students and therefore do not have to spend my time being lectured to."
I agree Peter. Unfortunately, I am not lecturing. I am demonstrating logical problems in other people's readings. I am sorry you have not been able to follow my demonstrations. I am sorry that these demonstrations seem pointless to you. Perhaps this is due to my not having written them clearly enough for you. Perhaps it is due to other circumstances that are beyond my control. In either case, I am sorry.
Peter, let me try it this way.
I seem to recall from my reading here that you play golf. So do I. Golf is one of those unique sports where you police yourself. There is no official or umpire watching over you to make sure that you do not improve your lie or skip shots or fail to count a shot or two. It is all up to you to make sure you follow the rules meticulously and that you play the game according to the way the rules allow you to play it. It becomes a question of honor, and we all agree to this and we follow these rules.
Peter, our argument and our analysis of this evidence is very much like golf. There are no officials or umpires here to make sure we do not improve our lies (claim to know more than we can or do) or to skip a shot (jump over a necessary logical step) or fail to count a shot (ignore a piece of evidence or a question or a piece of logic in the argument because it is inconvenient).
Recently I clearly demonstrated how you directly contradicted yourself about which scenario for the diary purchase is in fact more likely and why. You gave precisely the same reason for preferring one as you did for excluding another. This would not be a fair way to play the game. In the case of Mike's complicity, you assume a conclusion before it is logically established (thereby illegally improving your lie and making your shot unnaturally easier -- it is easy to assert a conclusion if you have already assumed it to be true). In the case of the Crashaw quote you ignore a shot (the nagging question of the timing of Mike's newspaper confession and why he did not produce the quote if he knew it was there). This shot is inconvenient to your achieving the best score possible (your assumed conclusion) and therefore you don't count it.
Finally, you begin the game with a final score already assumed. This is not how objective analysis is done just as it cannot be the way the game is played.
This is what worries me about what I have seen you and Karoline write.
I am sorry if this little example also seems pointless to you. I only hope you play this game carefully and objectively and play the evidence as it lies and count all of your shots.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 03:49 pm | | Good questions, Yaz.
And I agree with your beginning points.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 04:00 pm | | Dear Mike.
Short and sweet.
You write:
"If you look again you will see I responded to that point by showing you patiently that the term "probably" without a qualifier is logically meaningless; that logic can only measure greater or lesser probability than something else."
YES
And I have patiently demonstrated twice now that we have a qualifier.
A third time:
"A is probably B." means "A is more likely to be B than not to be B."
Why is that so hard to understand?
There is a qualifier. And it is not "A is more likely to be B than anything is likely to be B."
It is "A is more likely to be B than it is not to be B."
"Jerry's dad is probably a child molester." has an implied qualifier. It has logical meaning.
It means "It is more likely that Jerry's dad is a child molester than it is likely that he is not."
"Mike probably participated in the forgery." has an implied qualifier. It has logical meaning.
It means "It is more likely or probable that Mike participated in this forgery than it is that he did not participate in this forgery."
Is this hard to understand?
You see why it often and inevitably sounds like I'm lecturing, Peter? Surely you can understand this simple point.
When someone says "It is likely that Mike participated in this forgery" (as Peter and Karoline have both said, Mike)
it means
"It is more likely that Mike has participated in the forgery than it is that he has not."
This is the qualifier.
You speak English, Mike. When I say, "He is probably a bounder." in normal conversation, it has logical meaning even though the qualifier to the "probably" remains implied. What it actually means is "It is more likely that he is a bounder than it is that he is not a bounder." or "He is more probably a bounder than not a bounder." Now replace "He" with "Mike" and "bounder" with "forger."
See? It has a qualifier.
You get "Mike is more probably a forger than not a forger."
That's what "Mike is probably a forger" means, normally.
This is the claim we are arguing about. Not about whether Mike is more likely to be a forger than the rest of the Western Hemisphere. But about whether Mike is more likely to be forger than he is not to be a forger.
Do you understand, now?
If not, please send me e-mail privately. I do not want to have to produce this same explanation again.
And to think we were once almost in love...  .
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 04:35 pm | | Hi again Mike,
Just wanted you to let you know that I love the phrase "The data on the Crashaw quote suggests...."
You are now my friend again, just for writing this.
As for the missing step in your argument about the probability of ownership implying forgery, I am content to let Martin do the work for me:
"You rightly say that in the present state of knowledge we cannot possibly state that anybody other than Mike Barrett ever owned the diary. You ignore as if it were of no importance the equal truth that we cannot prove that anybody else who had reached the age of reason by 1990 did NOT own the diary. If that could be proved your position would be correct. But as things are, your argument is precisely that which would show Jack the Ripper to be a monkey because he couldn't be a bird. Other choices render the comparative nature of the probability far from an absolute probability."
I don't know if you can follow this. But I'll let it stand.
Mike, do any of your numbers tell me in any way whatsoever whether Mike Barrett is more likely to have forged this diary than he is not to have forged this diary?
I don't want to know if he is statistically more likely to have forged it than anyone else we've met so far.
I want to know if your numbers demonstrate that he is more likely to have himself participated in this forgery than he is not to have participated in this forgery.
This was Peter and Karoline's claim. What do the numbers say about this specifically. Not about others, about Mike and whether Mike Barrett is himself more likely to have helped forge this diary than he is not to have helped forge this diary?
You ask me: "why does my quotation of some simple mathematical probabilities cause you to become so defensive?"
It didn't. It caused me to wave. 
Seriously, Mike, I'll let Yaz's post speak to this and promise to you that I am not defensive. I just don't think you or your numbers have clearly demonstrated one particular thing: that Mike is more likely to have forged the diary than he is not to have forged the diary. That is, that it is now clearly more likely that he did forge this document than it is that he did not.
I suggest that neither one of these two possibilites (that he did forge this book or that he did not forge this book) has yet been clearly demonstrated, based on the limited reliable and determinable material evidence available, to be necessarily more likely than the other. Remember, the claim under discussion here is that it is now clearly more likely that he did forge this document than it is that he did not.
Read that closely.
Do the numbers demonstrate that it is now clearly more likely that he did forge this document than it is that he did not? I do not believe that we can claim this yet.
If I said Mike was probably a child molester (that is, that it was more likely that he is a child molester than it is that he is not one -- see the qualifier, Mike?) -- if I said Mike was probably a child molester, you'd ask for the evidence. You wouldn't give me statistics on how many other possible child molesters there might be. This would be irrelevant. You'd ask what evidence I have that Mike was probably a child molester (that is, that it was more likely that he is a child molester than it is that he is not one -- see the qualifier, Mike?).
Now I ask you to give me the evidence that he is probably a forger (that is, that is he is more likely to be a forger than he is not to be a forger -- see the qualifier, Mike?) and you offer me, by your own admission, only the Crashaw quote.
In that case, it is not yet fair or logical at this point then to claim that it is clearly more likely that Mike is the forger than it is that he is not the forger.
See the qualifier, Mike?
Nothing at all about Mike being more likely than anyone else to be the forger. Just it is not fair yet to claim that it is clearly now more likely that Mike is a forger than it is that he is not a forger.
Period. Again.
And finally,
You write:
"You are the one John, who began this by saying that the mere fact Barrett walked into Doreen's office with the book was enough to make him a more probable forger of the 'diary' than anyone who hadn't done that. You are contradicting no-one but yourself. "
There is no contradiction.
1.) Mike is more likely than I am to be the forger.
2.) It is not yet clearly more likely that Mike is the forger than it is that he is not the forger.
Regardless of whether you think these two statement are true or false, they are not in contradiction with one another by any possible stretch of the imagination whatsoever!
Is this clear?
Still, I love you just for that one phrase.
"The data on the Crashaw quote suggests..."
Indeed.
--John |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 05:21 pm | | | If Mike had a load of child pornography, confessed to being a child pornographer and made money off of selling child pornography, would you disagree with him being called a pornographer? After all..that isn't proof, now is it? What exactly was the point here? |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 05:40 pm | | Hi Alegria,
The point here is that there is a difference between saying Mike is more likely than you are to be a pornographer and saying Mike is probably a pornographer.
Saying Mike is more likely than you are to be a pornographer tells us one thing.
Saying Mike is probably a pornographer (that is, it is more likely that Mike is a pornographer than it is that Mike is not a pornographer -- see the qualifier, Mike?) tells us something completely different.
"Mike is more likely than you are to be a pornographer."
"Mike is probably a pornographer."
Two different claims, right Alegria?
You know the implied qualifier by now, right Mike?
Now, what you, Alegria, are discussing is evidence of whether Mike really is a pornographer or not. That is a good and legitimate discussion and I'd like to get back to it in the case of Mike being a forger. But first I had to explain that claiming that Mike was more likely than I am or than other people are to be a forger was not the same as saying Mike is probably a forger. Those are two different claims. And that saying "Mike is probably a forger" does in fact have logical meaning because the qualifier is implied. It means "Mike is more likely to be a forger than not to be a forger." I know I shouldn't have had to take this digression, you'd think. But I did.
Now we can talk about the evidence.
You ask:
"If Mike had a load of child pornography, confessed to being a child pornographer and made money off of selling child pornography, would you disagree with him being called a pornographer?"
I would only disagree if the conclusion was therefore that Mike actually made the pornography himself or helped to make it. That is, that he actually produced this pornography that he had and that he sold and that he made money off of.
Because it would certainly be possible (maybe even just as likely) that Mike had a bunch of child pornography and that he sold it and that he made money off of it, but that he didn't actually produce the stuff, you know? That he didn't actually take the pictures or make the films or even personally know the people who did. In fact, I think this really is sometimes the case in such situations, isn't it?
That would be my only objection.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 07:05 pm | | Hi John, Alegria,
I guess a similar situation might be drugs. I saw a headline today up near London Bridge, saying something like 'Five year-old found pushing drugs'. Now this five year-old may or may not know that what he/she is doing is a 'bad' thing; may or may not know that the drugs are harmful or even deadly; but no one in their right mind would suggest that this kid more likely than not grew the poppies or whatever, and processed the substances they were pushing! The same goes for an adult pusher, although it's obviously not entirely comparable with the diary situation, because the pusher would still be guilty of a crime, whereas we don't know enough to say yet that Mike was knowingly 'pushing' a fraudulent document.
Thanks, John, incidentally, for giving your views on the way Paul Begg and I have been debating these issues. As far as I am concerned, you got me spot on. I don't give a tinker's cuss if Mike or Anne turn out to be guilty or not guilty, of involvement in the creation of the diary. I simply don't see the point in rushing to assume that the evidence points one way or another if we don't yet know that it does anything of the sort.
John, I understand all your patient explanations to Mike David, including why the mathematical stuff just can't be applied in the way he is suggesting here. (My mother was a maths teacher, my brother is a patents lawyer, and I think I may have picked up bits and pieces from both of them over the years, and have reasonable comprehension skills - enough to understand every single point you have made so far.) And thanks, Yaz, for adding the human touch to the statistical argument - this is a human puzzle, after all, and coincidences happen with human puzzles, but aren't always allowed for by mathematicians, or those who like everything to be black or white. I do think maybe Mike David had a slight comprehension problem regarding the 'comparative' stuff, which hopefully you finally managed to make clear, by stating again what Karoline and Peter have been asserting here - not that Mike was more likely to be the diary forger than someone else, but that he was more likely to have forged the diary than not to have forged it. Not knowing any forgers myself, I have no way of knowing what to look out for in a likely forger, but on my current knowledge of Mike, I certainly wouldn't ask him to forge a sick note!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 07:53 pm | | Hi All,
We'd just been round the Tate Modern this morning, and were strolling along the Embankment when we came across a number of second-hand book stalls under Hungerford Bridge. I was browsing through the paperbacks, which only had their spines showing, when I came across one I thought might be of interest. On the spine were four words only: The Victorians - Arthur Pollard. When I picked it up to have a look, I couldn't believe my eyes. On the front cover were the words: Sphere History of Literature in the English Language Volume 6: The Victorians, edited by Arthur Pollard. I paid £2 for this 1970 edition, and then managed to find Volumes 3 and 9 (although I didn't buy these), but sadly no Volume 2. Inside my Volume 6 is a list of all 12 volumes. I'm now wondering if the later editions followed a similar pattern of wording shown on the spines. If so, and if the Volume 2 in the Liverpool library was available on the shelves in September 1994 for Mike to find, the wording on the spine would have been as follows: English Poetry & Prose, 1540-1674 - Christopher Ricks. The question is, how many books on a similar subject would Mike have had to flick through before coming across that one? Now that might be something one could work out statistically.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 10:04 pm | | None of us, to my knowledge, being either forgers or experts in forgery, could we nonetheless hazard an educated guess as to the following:
1) Would it be easier or harder for the forger to commit successful forgery choosing a relatively well-known person like James Maybrick to be Jack the Ripper? A man whose handwriting, at least, has to be successfully forged; whose itinerary has to be consistent with the dates of the murders; dozens of small facts that must not be inconsistent with Maybrick's life or the details of the murders?
2) After all, the point of the forgery is to convince us that the diary is written by Jack the Ripper, not that JtR's "real" name was John Doe from Anywhere-in-England or even James Maybrick from Liverpool. Isn't it?
3) Or is it very much the forger's point that James Maybrick from Liverpool has to be Jack the Ripper?
4) Is this forgery the silliest method known so far to offer Maybrick as a candidate for JtR, as so many legitimate researchers and writers have proposed their own candidates over the years through works of non-fiction?
5) Is this forgery an irresponsible attempt to damage the memory of Maybrick using any means possible? Is it reasonable that someone still holds a grudge against Maybrick a century after his death?
6) Or does James Maybrick of Liverpool have some exclusive appeal to the forger or any of the forger's hypothetical targets?
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 10:57 pm | | Hello, Yaz et al.:
Yaz, are you hinting again that the Grahams, Anne and Billy Graham, had a tradition of a connection to the Maybricks, as you said in an earlier post, a possibility that I contest???? As I noted, I really think that "connection" was manufactured by Paul Feldman and I would doubt whether either Anne or Billy Graham, let alone Mike Barrett, knew of any connection of that Graham family to Florence Maybrick aka Graham before it was suggested to Billy Graham by Paul Feldman. Can anyone produce any evidence that prior to Feldy's arrival on the scene either Graham ever mentioned the Maybricks?
How sophisticated is the Diary? Not extremely sophisticated. I have pointed out before that it is a pastiche of everything in Ripper lore, from the Dear Boss letters to the Lusk letter, from the farthings to the writing on the wall, and that it is highly repetititive in its motifs. On the other hand, ladies and gentlemen, evidently it is sophisticated enough--or should I say persuasive enough???--to have won over two veteran Ripper writers, namely Colin Wilson and Melvyn Fairclough, who have both expressed belief that James Maybrick actually was Jack the Ripper. Also academics such as Professor William Rubinstein of the University of Aberystwyth and profiler David Canter of the University of Liverpool have loaned their voices to those who have trumpeted the Diary's authenticity. Canter thinks the Diary sounds like the genuine voice of a serial killer. So, many of us will still maintain that the Diary is not sophisticated but, face it, to persuade Canter, Rubinstein, Wilson, and Fairclough, neither is it a rank amateur creation.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 03:45 am | | Chris, Yaz, John... Everyone
When speaking of sophistication, I was not really referring to the written content - storyline, as it were - but to the effort taken by the forger to fool anyone into believing that it was a genuine late Victorian document.
You see, what bothers me is the amount of knowledge or awareness a potential forger would need to produce a document capable of fooling an expert. To take a very simple example, the forger knew enough not to write it with a biro or felt tip pen, so the 'diary' presumably wasn't written for the author's own pleasure but was intended to fool somebody (this is assuming, of course, that the document wasn't written when biros and felt tip pens didn't exist). The forger also thought to write with a dip pen rather than a fountain pen, which shows a little more awareness and also an attempt to fool someone who would not only think to look for but also be able to distinguish between a dip pen and fountain pen. And if the use of Diamine manuscript ink was a conscious decision rather than a happy accident, the forger also knew enough to choose a Victorian look-alike ink, which may suggest that the forger intended to fool someone capable of doing an ink analysis.
We could therefore be looking at a forger who was aware of what experts would look for, from which we could conclude that the forger expected the 'diary' to be subjected to some professional examination. We can therefore perhaps deduce a degree of sophistication - which may not be consistent a 'got it from a dead mate' provenance.
Does the handwriting look Victorian? Does the 'diary' use anachronistic words? The answers to these questions also help indicate the forger's awareness. Does the first show that the forger knew enough to realise that Victorian schooling would have led to a handwriting that an expert could distinguish from handwriting produced through schooling in the 1950s? Does the absence of anachronistic words mean that the author was lucky or that he worked with a copy of the OED beside him. How many “ordinary” people know that the full OED contains derivations and not just definitions? Would Mike have known this?
Is someone who knew this and took steps to avoid the mistakes likely to have settled on a 'got it from a dead mate' provenance?
Let’s not forget the expert opinion of Robert A.H. Smith, Assistant Keeper, Department of Manuscripts, British Library, who wrote on 5th June 1992: “I am writing to confirm that I examined the manuscript diary you brought to me recently and saw nothing in it inconsistent with it being of a late nineteenth-century date.”
Or Brian Lake of Jarndyce Antiquarian Booksellers of Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury, who in a letter to Shirley Harrison dated 5th June 1992, concluded: “However from a limited look at the volume, there is nothing to indicate that the “Jack the Ripper” diary is not of the 1880s, and in my view the writing is of the same period.”
Or forensic document examiner Audrey Giles, who seems to have noted deliberate efforts to mimic a Victorian hand, it being noted by the staunchly anti-‘diary’ The Sunday Times that she: “spotted evidence of strikes added to the characters “f”, “y” and “g” to give them large and rounded loops typical of copperplate writing.” Does the writing “look” Victorian and contain any anachronistic words?
So, to add to Chris's list of experts like Professor Canter and Professor Rubinstein, we should add these people and Professor Forshaw.
Here are people with a lot more experience of examining documents such as the ‘diary’ who, albeit from limited examinations, saw nothing to cause them to immediately question the authenticity of the document. Lack of bronzing didn’t bother them. The handwriting looked okay, nothing in the wording, phrasing, writing, leapt out and struck they between the eyes like a sock full of wet sand.
And mentioning Audrey Giles, she “agreed that the diary writings varied considerably in style from small and neat to large, scrawled and apparently agitated…” Why do we have an agitated modern forger? Does this variation in style reveal a real and genuine emotional stress in the author? Can that be linked to what both Dr Forshaw and professor Canter have perceived? Does this fit Mike?
Does this evidence adds up to an awareness of what was being done and show that measures were taken (very successfully, as it happens) to avoid immediate detection? Do we, in short, have a fairly aware and sophisticated forger or someone who knocked together this thing over a weekend or a few weeks? Is it consistent with the research notes?
And at the core of this debate about logic is whether or not it is fair to say that mike Barrett is more or less likely than someone else to have written the 'diary'. Thus far the pro-Barrattists, as they might be described, have advanced the following permutations, according to how bits of the “data” are interpreted by them.
(1) Mike composed the ‘diary’ on his word processor and penned the ‘diary’ himself.
(2) Mike composed the ‘diary’ on his word processor and Anne penned the ‘diary’.
(3) Mike composed the ‘diary’ on his word processor and the ‘diary’ was penned by somebody else.
(4) Mike and Anne with others met at Mike’s home as a group, the ‘Diary’ being composed on Mike’s word processor and being penned by somebody else, possibly Gerrard Kane.
(5) Mike had nothing to do with the forgery, which was composed and penned by ‘Devereux and his pals’, but Mike contributed the Crashaw quote.
(6) Mike was merely the 'placer' and did not know the penman, who would have distanced himself from Mike.
Add to this, the arguments that variously propose that the ‘diary’ was forged by Devereux, was composed within Devereux’s lifetime and was composed after Devereux was dead, and we have a mishmash of speculative arguments often advanced without any apparent awareness that one change conflicts with others (i.e., the 'diary' was composed after Devereux was dead and Devereux, being dead, was a good scapegoat, conflicts with Gerrard Kane penning the 'diary' - Kane's only known possible link with Barrett being through Devereux - and Barrett's own claim that he supplied the Crashaw quote to Devereux and his pals).
Finally, whilst in no sense disagreeing with you Chris, “Can anyone produce any evidence that prior to Feldy's arrival on the scene either Graham ever mentioned the Maybricks?” is a question that may be impossible to answer. Who would they mention it to and how would we know about it? Whether or not Feldman planted the idea, isn't the only real family connection the interview with Billy Graham where the recollection of Keith is that Anne registered consternation when Billy suggested that he was descended from Florence, demanding of him: “Who told you that?” If so, whether the story is true or false, Billy seems never to have spoken of it. And why should he have done, particularly if he was in fact trying to make sense of a jumble of memories and thoughts, many perhaps awakened or prompted by Feldy's research.
Sorry for the long post. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 03:59 am | | Hi Chris, All,
Now be warned. The following is a little bit of speculation on my part that many of you may find hard, or even impossible, to take, and not very useful or positive. But I have felt this for a long time now. It appears to me - and I may be completely wrong - that there may have been a tendency for some people to make the document fit the prime suspect, and therefore suit the desires and expectations of the reader. If Mike-as-forger satisfies a person's desires and expectations, the forgery has to be shown to be unsophisticated, appallingly so, in fact - a shabby hoax, a bit of old tat. We've all heard these phrases many times, coming from people who say Mike Barrett, on the evidence, is almost certainly our man. If Anne-as-forger does the trick for another sleuth, the forgery is allowed to be a wee bit more sophisticated. At the other extreme, those who believe the diary creator was a clever clogs, such as Michael Maybrick perhaps, or a modern Mr. Big, who did it not for filthy lucre, but to set sensitive Ripperologist egos on edge at the hundred years on mark, the forgery may then be milked for all it's worth as some sort of work of genius. All the misspellings and grammatical errors will then be seen as intentional - every single stroke in the diary becomes 'as the author intended'. I will admit I have been guilty of such speculation myself, wondering if the creator planned everything down to the last-but-one detail, whereupon fate took over in the form of Mike Barrett - the only real stroke of 'luck' involved - when the finished work fell into this man's unhappy lap - an innocent abroad.
My point is that none of us should ever have judged the document by the skills they see or don't see in their preferred suspect. But I do suspect, if we are totally honest with ourselves, that this may well have been the case, to a greater or lesser degree. Am I the only one to have bordered on doing so, or am I the only one to admit it? Melvin himself has had to admit that the facts point away from Mike or Anne faking it between them, and I suspect this has at least something to do with his comparison of the forging skills he does see displayed in the document itself, some of which go beyond luck, and those he perceives are lacking in Mike and Anne.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 04:03 am | | If it will help clarify things here:
I think MB is more likely to have been involved in the forgery than any but one or two other people.
and
I think MB is more likely to have been involved in the forgery than not.
I hope this will allow Mr O. to stop going on about me for a while (but no I am not going to start debating it again!)
It's gratifying to see that the science of probability agrees with me. Though that doesn't seem to have had the slightest effect on certain diehards here!
K |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 04:29 am | | Thanks Karoline.
Those two little words 'I think' make all the difference.
Love and best wishes,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 05:15 am | | Yes, but when determining who committed the crime, does 'probability' come into play before an assessment of the evidence or after it?
Personally, I have never denied - though I have yet to see the evidence - that the statistical probability is that the forger is most likely to be the person who most benefits from the forgery. But this is a statistical probability that could be advanced before knowing anything at all about the specific case, much as a policeman knows that a murdered wife is statistically most likely to have been murdered by her husband.
Having fixed on the statistically most probable suspect, other evidence is brought in to support that probability, such as Mike having the text of the 'diary' on his word processor. Such "facts" as this, we have been told, add up to make it highly probable that Mike was the forger.
The knotty problem which caused all this trouble is that these "facts" support Mike's guilt only if given a guilty interpretation (i.e., the text is on Mike's word processor because Mike composed the diary on his word processor). If given an innocent interpretion (i.e., the text is on Mike's word processor because Mike transcribed it from the 'diary'} this "fact" does not support Mike's guilt.
The problem is that those who support the former interpretation have not presented a logical argument why it is more likely than the latter. Indeed, the alternative interpretations have in fact been dismissed as baseless speculation, as if somehow the former interpretation isn't.
What John Omlor has argued is that there is no reason why either interpretation is more or less likely to be correct and that no argument has been offered to say why one or the other should be so considered. And, of course, the whole point is that is by chance the non-guilty interpretation should prove to be correct, the "facts" won't at all have supported the statistical probability of Mike's guilt, just as sometimes the statistical probabable husband did not kill his wife.
So, we have a statistically probable suspect whose guilt is supported by "facts" improperly interpreted to infer guilt. Or we have a statistically probable suspect whose guilt is not supported by "facts" because it is properly allowed that those "facts" are capable of equally likely interpretations that do not infer guilt.
Probability before the evidence is assessed is meaningless. Probability based on a full and proper assessment of the evidence has meaning. There is an important distinction. |
Author: Robert Smith
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 06:10 am | | From time to time, I look at the boards and am surprised at the intensity of the debate on the Ripper diary some seven and a half years after publishing it. Usually I don’t think I can add much to the discussion, especially when the sound of axes being ground is often so deafening.
But for once I would like to offer a few thoughts on some of the bones of contention being picked over.
1. The Transcript.
A theory has been put forward that the transcript produced by the Barretts may have appeared on Mike’s word processor prior to the diary being written. However, there is plenty of internal evidence, that the producers of the transcript copied from the diary manuscript, rather than the other way around. For instance, many words correctly spelt in the diary are misspelt in the transcript.
Take the very first line:
Manuscript: what they have in store for them they would stop this instant.
Typescript: what I have in store for them they would stop this instance.
There is another early example where “business” in the manuscript becomes “bussiness” in the typescript. In contrast, there are no correct spellings in the transcript, which are misspelt in the diary manuscript. Of course, there are some misspellings in the diary, like “rondaveau” and “poste”, but they make it across to the transcript, without further deviation.
The logical conclusion must be that the diary manuscript came first and that spelling and other linguistic errors were introduced into the transcript by the Barretts.
2. Richard Crashaw..
It is very important to discover how and why one and a half lines from a 17th Century metaphysical poem, “Sancta Maria Dolorum” by Richard Crashaw, found their way into the diary. Crashaw’s words are:
O costly intercourse
Of deaths,
The diary manuscript has:
Oh costly intercourse
of death
The transcript has:
Oh costly intercourse of death
It is interesting to note, re the transcript discussion above, that while the transcript repeats the two spelling errors in the diary, it does also introduce a new error, by converting the one and half lines into one line without a break.
However, the big question is, how do these lines come to be in the diary? I believe we can rule out the suggestion that Mike found them, when idly leafing through the essay on the religious metaphysical poets in Volume 2 of the Sphere History of Literature. To follow the trail of that scenario, you would have to allow that, when Mike and his friends were allegedly involved in faking the diary manuscript in or before March 1992, they would anticipate by two and a half years, that in September 1994, Shirley would ask Mike to look for the quote in Liverpool Central Library, and that he would have known that Volume 2 would physically be in the Library. Incidentally, unlike the 7-volume Pelican Guide to English Literature, the Sphere History of Literature did not achieve wide circulation. It’s not easy to find. It took me eight years of looking for it in second hand book shops and book fairs, before I finally found a copy of Volume 2 three months ago.
The suggestion was made on the boards by Melvin Harris, that Mike first saw the quote on page 184 of the Sphere book, because it naturally fell open at that page, due to it being a “substandard” copy “with binding defects”. With 30 years of book publishing and printing experience behind me, my opinion is that there was no binding defect. Firstly it is unusual for binding defects to occur in the form of manufacture used for this series. Secondly, publishers do not accept sub-standard printings from manufacturers. It is just possible that Mike had a “rogue copy”. Certainly my copy doesn’t fall open at any page. Paperbacks are, like this one, usually “perfect bound” (ie, a cheap form of paperback binding, where the pages are guillotined and only attached to the spine with glue) If you press back the pages of a “perfect bound” paperback, it will tend to fall open at that same point thereafter.
My view is that Mike’s first version of events was the correct one. He proudly reported his discovery of Crashaw’s lines in Liverpool Central Library to Shirley on 30th September 1994. Later he remembered he owned a copy of the same volume, sent to him by Sphere as part of a charity contribution to the Hillsborough disaster fund. He recovered it from his girlfriend’s son, to whom he had lent it for his exam work. Once he had it back, surely we can imagine Mike pressing the pages back against the spine of the book to stay open at page 184, so that he could gaze with pleasure at the quote. From that moment on, the book would fall open naturally at this page.
To test whether or not the Crashaw lines in the diary derive from the Sphere book, just look at the two lines in the poem, which immediately precede the one and half lines quoted in the diary.
“While with a faithfull, mutuall floud
Her eyes bleed Tears, his wounds weep Blood.”
Then read what immediately precedes the quote in the diary.
“I want to boil boil boil, see if their eyes pop. I need more thrills, I will go on, I will go on. nothing will stop me nothing. Cut Sir Jim cut. Cut deep deep deep.”
And in the paragraph before that, we get:
“I keep seeing blood pouring from the bitches”.
That is some coincidence of language and imagery: in the poem there is a “floud” of blood from wounds; in these few lines in the diary, we have “blood pouring” from wounds. In the poem, the eyes “bleed Tears”; in the diary the eyes “pop”.
There are also some interesting psychosexual parallels. In the poem, the woman, whose “eyes bleed Tears” is Jesus’s holy mother, Mary. At the moment in the diary where the quote appears, the writer has just completed his graphic description of the “very best” murder, that of another Mary, the only Ripper victim to be named in the diary. And throughout the diarist’s poem following the murder of Mary Kelly are the repeated references to a very different mother, “the whoring mother”, Florence Maybrick.
It is clear to me, that the writer of the diary, knew not just the one and half lines, but the whole poem.
As Shirley has detailed on page 283 of the Blake edition, several editions of Crashaw’s poems, published or in print around the time of the Ripper murders, would have been available to a Victorian writer. Interest in Crashaw waned after the First World War, and only the Clarendon Press edition has been published since then. First published in 1927, a second edition appeared in 1957. It has been out of print for at least 25 years.
Could it be that the diarist is James Maybrick? As he was brought up in the shadow of St. Peter’s Church, Liverpool, with both his father and grandfather holding the post of parish clerk, we may surmise that he was steeped in religion, as were most Victorian children. One could reasonably speculate that the works of religious poets such as Crashaw and Herbert would have been readily available to the educated Maybrick family. Whether or not the diarist is James Maybrick, the linguistic, ritualistic and emotional connections of the diary to Crashaw’s poem are too strong and too obvious to be ignored.
3. The Red Diary.
We have been asked to accept that, while Mike Barrett was contacting publishers and agents, he was also hunting around for a diary for the fakers to write in. The red diary for the year 1891 was sent to Mike at Goldie Street on 26th March 1992. All very traceable – indeed Anne did the tracing of the transaction and the payment freely and openly, and handed the red diary over to Keith Skinner. Mike phoned the agent, Doreen Montgomery, about the diary on 9th March 1992, and on 13th April 1992 took it to her in London. Can we believe that in the space of two weeks or one month, Mike and his friends were able to locate the Victorian scrapbook with enough blank pages, on which to write the diary, and to fake the diary so well, that in 2001, we are still disputing whether or not it is a modern forgery, or indeed whether it is a forgery at all.
Has anyone tried to locate a Victorian scrapbook, with more than 64 blank pages, especially one in such good condition as the diary? In the last ten years of amateur antique hunting and dealing, I’ve only seen one similar scrapbook from the Victorian period, and that was in appalling condition and had no blank pages. It belonged to the Doubleday family of Coggeshall, Essex, and like our diary, is missing many of its pages.
However, even assuming the fakers struck lucky and located the scrapbook, the ink, if applied in 1992, would not have been dry enough by 13th April 1992 to avoid detection. Read what Dr Nicholas Eastaugh, a professional scientific analyst of materials used in old manuscripts and paintings, had to say in 1992, after analysing the ink used in the diary.
“Research suggests that solubility allows us to follow ink as it dries for a period of perhaps about three to five years… During the tests conducted on the diary, it was clear that the solubility of the ink was similar to the Victorian reference material and unlike the modern inks dried out for reference, but we still cannot properly distinguish on this basis whether the ink is Victorian, because after a few years, we could not adequately differentiate inks of quite dissimilar age anyway.”
In other words, if Mike Barrett or friends had applied ink to the paper after 1987 to 1989, Dr Eastaugh would have been able to reveal the diary as a fake. Of course, pre the recovery of Dr Bond’s full autopsy report in 1987, the diarist wouldn’t have had access to all the details of Mary Kelly’s death, especially not the removal of her heart. “No heart. No heart” says the diarist about Kelly. So, when would you say the diary was written?
4. The Watch.
Contributors to the boards don’t usually like to give serious attention to the “Maybrick” watch, but it is too important to ignore or dismiss. Two top scientists, from the highly respected metallurgy departments at UMIST and Bristol University, both concluded that the scratches are “several tens of years age”. Both scientists emphasised the considerable skill and scientific awareness required to “implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engravings.”
So did both eminent scientists, with the country’s most advanced diagnostic techniques at their disposal, get it wrong? And could the scratches really be faked so easily by rank amateurs, so as to fool the good doctors, Turgoose and Wild.
5. What’s Left to Do.
The only reason for offering these thoughts is to request that anyone wanting to find out whether this diary is a hoax or a genuine document, keeps an open mind, until better evidence emerges. If, for instance, Mr Kane’s handwriting turns out to be an excellent match to the writing in the diary, in the opinion of one or more respected and qualified document examiners (and, if it does look similar, it must be worth a few hundred pounds of someone’s money to find out), then we can start to look at how Mr Kane and his colleagues managed to forge the diary and (presumably) the watch.
I do think the full truth about the diary’s origins will emerge in time, but the process is slowed down by personal animosities, blind alleys and red herrings. When I published the diary, I believed it was genuine. I still do think it is a Victorian document and that James Maybrick is its most likely author. But eight years later, we still do not have enough evidence to prove who wrote the diary or when it was written. Rigorous, objective and honest research and investigation may yet solve the mystery.
I am not a regular reader of the Casebook Message Boards, so please don’t expect to engage me in any exchanges of views. However if I do catch any specific question, which I have the knowledge to answer, I will do my best to respond.
Robert |
|
|
|
|
