James Maybrick- Perelman Sarah Neill

Type	Example
Division	Rubinstein tries to prove that James Maybrick is the Ripper by breaking the murders into their separate components; the days of the week on which they took place, the days working men got paid, the location, the aspect of family life the killer would have had. By going through all of these aspects individually he is trying to make a bunch of little arguments that he thinks will build into a larger argument. Rubinstein tries to convince the reader of each individual fact, like Maybrick being able to travel on weekends, or Maybrick living alone in London, in hopes that it will amount to a larger argument.
Facts-Supposed	All of the “facts” Rubinstein provides are all supposed facts. He even states that it is “a good deal of indirect evidence that points to Maybrick” meaning that nothing is proven. He makes very general arguments with phrases like “might” “more likely” and only mentions Maybrick in parenthesis at the end of his argument.
Interpretations- Specific choices	In the majority of the post, Rubinstein chooses about five other suspects and explains why he doesn’t think it is those people, he then spends the last section talking about why it is Maybrick. In his defenses he only mentions specific aspects of the murders and ignores others. In denying that Mary Kelly was blackmailing anyone in the royal conspiracy, Rubinstein fails to mention Mary Kelly when convicting James Maybrick.