James Maybrick- Fallacies, Sarah Neill

Fallacy	Description
Black or White	“If it can be proved that [James Maybrick] was definitely not the Ripper…  None of the other suspects is remotely convincing” Rubinstein makes is clear that it is either James Maybrick or unknown because he spends most of the article refuting other suspects. The only way it is not Maybrick would be with “irrefutable proof”.
Appeal to ignorance	“none of the other suspects is remotely convincing” (I still can’t believe he put “is” and not “are”) Here we see that because we don’t know if it isn’t him, it is. Basically because there is no proof against Maybrick, he is the most obvious choice.
Texas sharpshooter	All the murders happened on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. Workmen were paid on Thursday. People would go to the suburbs on the weekend after work. Because Maybrick fits all these categories, he is the Ripper.
Wishful thinking	“I am personally more than 90 per cent sure that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.” Rubinstein clearly states that only Maybrick could be the Ripper because he wants Maybrick to be. He ignores the fact of the diary “forged” by Michael Barrett.