Excellent, we can now ignore the timesheets because they are rubbish. They don't actually show us who was working in Battlecrease at any time, apparently. And Eddie had no interest in being paid for any work he did on 9 March. Wonderful. So let's ditch the timesheets. Instead, we need to rely on bits of unsubstantiated gossip and rumour that are suddenly being posted from out of absolutely nowhere on this forum. Bits of gossip and rumour which one doesn't even find mentioned in Robert Smith's book which was supposed to be "The True Facts"!!! This story really does just get better and better.
Jones/Lloyd - The Ripper File
Farson-Jack the Ripper
Spencer Shew-Hand[s] of the Ripper
Published 1971, 1972, 1975.
Not new titles in May, 1992. Nor titles that would normally spring to the mind of a neophyte out to study Jack the Ripper for the first time. Nor titles a librarian would normally recommend to a neophyte. Well, maybe Farson would be.
The two books Barrett actually mentions in his supposed "research notes" are Wilson/Odell JtR: Summing up and Verdict (1987) and Paul Harrison JtR: the Mystery Solved (1991). Both much more recent titles.
No, to me this smells more like the request of someone who knows what they are doing, or is out to add to their already substantial collection. What is common known as a "Ripperologist."
Barrett allegedly had little knowledge of the Whitechapel Murder case (at least according to the opinions of Keith Skinner, etc) and yet, in that 36 hour whirlwind of activity, May 9-10th 1992, Barrett somehow comes up with these 3 curious titles and somehow concludes they are worth spending what little money he doesn't have in order to obtain them in order to...do what exactly?
So now we are being drip fed information – or rather, drip fed statements without any evidential support – not mentioned in Robert Smith's book or any other publication or website of which I am aware, one statement being that the Portus and Rhodes electricians were working in Battlecrease in 1989.
One has to love the logic of the argument here. On 9th March there is a timesheet which does not show Eddie Lyons working in Battlecrease. In 1989 there is a timesheet which does not show Eddie Lyons working in Battlecrease. Of course this obviously means that Eddie Lyons was working in Battlecrease on 9th March 1992 but not in 1989! It's Diary logic at its finest.
It's such a great point I must repeat it. When I ask: Where is the evidence that Eddie Lyons didn't work in Battlecrease in 1989? The answer comes back: The timesheets prove it. But when the timesheets don't show Eddie working in Battlecrease on 9th March 1992, then the timesheets are wrong!!!
You've gotta love the flexibility of that timesheet evidence. It can say whatever you want it to say.
But it seems to me that if we can't rely on the timesheets to tell us who was working in a property on any particular day then perhaps Eddie Lyons was working in Battlecrease on 1989. According to Feldman, Eddie claimed to have found the diary in Battlecrease in 1989 and on this basis Mike Barrett was seriously asked to give up 5 percent of his proceeds from the diary. So perhaps Eddie did find something in there in 1989. Not the diary of course but something else. And the story has now been built up into the massive fog of rumour and gossip that is unfortunately being repeated in this thread.
Could the Diary have been tossed into the skip and been retrieved by "Eddie", who rummaged through it later to see if there was scrap metal he could sell to Mike (knowing he would see him later in the pub)? Eddie may not have been doing actual work in the house but just scavenging for metal. And where was the site of the skip?
Last edited by Scott Nelson : 11-21-2017 at 12:10 PM.
When I think of the importance of Robert Smith's first hand experience of watching the body language of Mike and Eddie during their June 1993 meeting, their eye contact and reactions, well, you know, it makes me wonder why he said not a word about any of it in his book "The True Facts"! And my conclusion from him saying nothing is that it can't have been very important after all.
But more than this, I think that it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making which is that Robert Smith set up the meeting in June 1993 specifically and expressly to meet Eddie Lyons, something which he asked Mike to arrange on his behalf.
So I have to repeat: what purpose did any mention of this meeting serve?
The latest mystery that we are supposed to be impressed about is that Robert Smith can't work out how Mike managed to convey to Eddie that the meeting was to be in the Saddle at 10pm. But does it matter? Are we supposed to think that Mike and Eddie were in psychic communication? It was Robert Smith who asked for the meeting and Robert Smith who says he "suggested meeting Lyons that evening in the Saddle". So when he later met Eddie Lyons in the Saddle, having suggested such a meeting to Mike earlier in the evening, it's really futile to try and wonder how Lyons knew about it because it means nothing at all.
I say again:
If anyone understands the significance of the fact that Eddie Lyons "actually came into the Saddle one night [in June 1993] when Robert Smith was there with Mike and sat down" perhaps they can explain it to me. Why was it ever mentioned in this thread? To simply give some information to RJ that he apparently didn’t know before? Do me a favour!
Not new titles in May, 1992. Nor titles that would normally spring to the mind of a neophyte out to study Jack the Ripper for the first time. Nor titles a librarian would normally recommend to a neophyte.
Quite so. They're pretty much "special interest" books, I'd say, apart - arguably - from Farson. Even the latter wouldn't have been a natural choice for a newbie in the early 1990s, given the popularity and publicity surrounding the books of (e.g.) Rumbelow, Knight and Fido in the post-Farson years.
Following on from the advert for the Victorian diary is a request for ITV yearbooks for the period 1955 to 1979, a request for BBC yearbooks for 1950-1979 and a request for a book by P. Cummings called "Silver Eagle carries on". Unless Mike also wanted these books too there is no connection whatsoever been the Ripper books in Earl's list and the Victorian diary.
It was perfectly common in 1992 in these book collecting magazines for people to be requesting hard to find Jack the Ripper books and what we have here is a great example of someone trying to see patterns and connections in separate events which almost certainly don't exist.
To be fair, David, there are Far More egregious examples of seeing imaginary patterns in ripperology, and it's not as if the "pattern" here is purely fanciful in any case. Instead we have, within a couple of lines of one another in the same advertisement, a request for three specialist Ripper books and the notorious blank Victorian diary. This may be entirely coincidental, of course, but it's an interesting coincidence nonetheless.
Instead we have, within a couple of lines of one another in the same advertisement, a request for three specialist Ripper books and the notorious blank Victorian diary. This may be entirely coincidental, of course, but it's an interesting coincidence nonetheless.
Well I saw those books immediately when I first saw that advert and I have to say that I didn't think it was particularly interesting. By that time, mind you, I had already looked through a number of other book collecting mags from 1992 and seen other requests/adverts for JTR books.
Just by way of example, here is an extract from Book and Magazine Collector of May 1992. Three adverts below the Martin E. Earl advert is a collector asking for Jack the Ripper books. Nothing unusual or remarkable about it at all.