As people seem to have difficulty in understanding what I am saying let me rephrase:
The point is that Eddie Lyons was NOT a random coincidence. He probably only exists in the story because he happened to be one of nine Liverpool electricians who drank in the Saddle. It’s not a random coincidence, in other words, it’s a manufactured story – manufactured by Rigby - created to please the big film producer, Paul Feldman, and give him exactly what he wanted. In response, Eddie initially seems to have been non-committal and then, according to Feldman, appears to have agreed that he did find the diary (in 1989) once he realised that there might be something in it for him. Then, when it became clear that there was nothing in it for him after all (and after having been confronted with an angry Mike Barrett asking him why he was lying) it looks like he reverted to the truth in June 1993 and said he never found it. As far as I know, that remains his position to this day.
If anyone is wondering why I am still here posting in this thread, my thread – the thread that I created to discuss Mike's acquisition of a Victorian diary – it is because I am responding to new (timesheet) evidence which is being used to suggest that Mike did not attempt to locate a Victorian diary with blank pages in order to write something onto those blank pages.
But, as I have said, if the diary did come from under the floorboards in Battlecrease in 1992 then the only sensible conclusion is that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper which, forgive me, seems to be a pretty important conclusion because it solves the entire JTR mystery and here I agree entirely with Robert Smith in this regard: it's either a genuine diary or a modern forgery.
The notion that a forged diary of this nature could have ended up under the floorboards of Battlecrease is so ridiculous – and I have yet to read a single coherent argument as to how or why such a thing could have happened - that it is beyond contemplation.
I am quite certain that Keith Skinner and others have not been investigating to prove me wrong about anything and I have never said they were. I said that I thought the new evidence was supposed to prove me wrong about things I have posted on this forum. I didn't say that this was the reason anyone has done anything. My goodness, some people really have problems with basic comprehension.
I have been told directly on this forum that the new timesheet evidence was going to make any notion that the diary could have been forged in March/April 1992 redundant. Well it certainly has not done that. All it has done is create a new argument about when the diary was created and it is no more than this. If anyone thinks that we now know for certain on the basis of a single coincidence that the diary was not forged in 1992 they might as well think the moon is made of cream cheese.
I love the fact that I am told that the floorboards could have been lifted on any number of days between May 1889 and today and then, in the very next breath, that the floorboards being lifted on 9 March 1992 (if they were so lifted) was a "one off instance". Well if they were lifted prior to 9 March 1992 - as Harrison and Dodd suggest was the case - then it wasn't a one off instance was it?
I suppose it's just as well that I am not addressing my comments in this thread to anyone in particular bearing in mind that there is always a chance that some people might not care what I think about any particular issue. But I must say that for someone who claims not to care about what I think, one person seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time responding to all my posts on this forum. One might even detect that someone has an obsession about what I think given the attempts made to counter my views. I even wonder why that person is posting in this thread - my thread - if they don't care what I think. Perhaps someone is getting upset and frustrated that the much vaunted timesheet evidence has turned out to be a damp squib.
Here's a funny thing though. The person who said she doesn't care what I think, and who wonders why I keep posting in this thread, posted a link to this thread (my thread) in another forum on 10 November with the following comment:
"I put up a long post over at casebook at the end of last month, exploring some alternatives if Mike used Devereux to conceal or disguise the diary's true origins. I'm quite surprised it hasn't been pounced on yet and trashed by any of the regulars - not a single response."
She was talking here about a post she made in this thread very dated 30 October which was addressed specifically to RJ Palmer and began "Hi RJ". It was, needless to say, a long rambling post full of nonsense, not worth commenting on, and so I, like most sensible people, ignored it. Yet that ignoring seems to have been the source of such surprise to the extent that the absence of responses by "the regulars" (which undoubtedly included me) was publicly commented on in another forum!
And let's face it, what she was saying there was that her post was so good it was unanswerable! Not, of course, the case but some people seem happy to delude themselves.
But that's not all because the same person initially set out her theory that Mike was testing the price of a Victorian diary in the other forum on 17 November with the comment: "Any thoughts, before I wave this under the noses of the terminally sceptical?" Perhaps she was referring to those who are terminally sceptical that the diary was written by James Maybrick (i.e. herself!) but then in a subsequent post she said "I don't doubt someone will come up with a million and one objections to this all too straightforward and mundane explanation, so they can keep the theory afloat that Mike was still busy at the end of March 1992 trying to find an old book in which his diary could be penned in time for his appointment in London on April 13th". Would it be fair for me to conclude she was talking about me? I think so. And so, far from not caring about what I think, she is talking about me on other forums. Obsessive or what?
One thing worth mentioning is that amongst all the intellectually lazy backslapping over in that forum, one of the posters did, to his credit, step forward and, in a brave case of the Emperor's New Clothes, pointed out that the latest so-called "straightforward and mundane" theory to explain Mike's acquisition of a Victorian diary doesn't make any sense.
The whole notion of Mike trying to get hold of those three rare JTR books is so ludicrous that it's barely worth discussing. Clearly we are now being told that Keith Skinner's investigation WAS faulty. He could see those JTR books on the advert as well as any of us. And it must be perfectly obvious that if Mike had also requested JTR books as well as the Victorian diary, Keith would have been told this by Martin Earl during his investigation.
As I've mentioned in #10, to get the advert into the issue of Bookdealer of 19 March 1992, Mike had to have contacted Martin Earl by 10th March at the latest so it wasn't a case of him requesting the diary, then a few days later, at another point in time, asking for some Ripper books too.
But I'd like to know this. Was Mike responsible for the request for the ITN and BBC yearbooks? If not, why not? Why is he not believed to be responsible for this bit of the advert which appears directly beneath the request for the diary?
What we have here is someone who can't seem to comprehend that Martin Earl had lots of clients and it was obviously another client who asked for those Jack the Ripper books which were collected or sought after by many people just like it was another client who asked for the ITN and BBC yearbooks. It's a case of someone drawing false conclusions from minimal information. And it's part of a pattern of doing so, looking for connections which don't really exist.
Ah, the rumours going round the electricians in 1992. Yes indeed. Now where is the actual evidence of these rumours going round the electricians in 1992? Where is the evidence that there were any rumours in 1992 of a diary having been found? That's what I've been asking. How do we know this is not all ex post facto, with hindsight, after Feldman started sniffing around and possibly creating false memories?
One thing that seems to be a fact is that an old newspaper was found in Battlecrease and the electricians asked permission to keep it. How do we know that the stories told to Feldman in 1993 were not confusing the discovery of this newspaper with an imagined finding of a diary?
How do we even know that the stories were not part of "a scam", as claimed by Paul Dodd and reported in Inside Story?
In the absence of any evidence of such rumours actually existing in 1992 are we entitled to conclude that, in fact, there were none and those supposed rumours only came into existence in 1993 during Paul Feldman's "investigation"?