When I said that Rigby could easily have convinced himself that Lyons had been involved in finding something and had passed it on to Devereux and Barrett this in no way assumes that Rigby knew anything about Devereux or Barrett. Itís simple comprehension. Rigby was asked if he had found anything at Battlecrease and whether he knew two men called Devereux and Barrett. He didnít need to be a rocket scientist to work out that something had been found in Battlecrease and passed on to two men called Devereux and Barrett. He also didnít need to be a rocket scientist to work out that the transfer of the item was supposed to have happened in the Saddle. He didnít need to know who Devereux and Barrett were at all. If he actually remembered Eddie Lyons finding something in Battlecrease (or being told that he had) Ė and if Eddie Lyons did not work in Battlecrease prior to 1992 (something which has not been proved) Ė then he could just as easily have remembered being told of something being found in June or July 1992.
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. Itís not a random coincidence, in other words, itís a manufactured story created to please the big film producer, Paul Feldman, and give him exactly what he wanted.
And this is a wonderful quote from Rigby that I mentioned in my "Response to the Muppets" article:
"I remember something being thrown out of a window of the room where we were working at Mr Dodd's house. It was put in a skip. With everything that I've heard since about the diary and considering the trip to Liverpool University, I think I've solved your problem." (Feldman p.134)
Rigby was trying to solve Feldmanís problem based on what he had been told, after Feldman had started his investigations, about the discovery of a diary. He gave him an electrician, a vague memory of something being found in Battlecrease and the pieces were filled in. Then the electrician who drank at the Saddle, Eddie Lyons, helpfully claimed to have found the diary in 1989. There is no random coincidence here. All we have is that a random Portus & Rhodes electrician drank in the Saddle pub in Liverpool. Big deal. It means nothing!
Hereís the thing. I thought that this much vaunted and "compelling" timesheet evidence was going to end the debate about where the diary came from. Thatís why I am amused that the floorboard argument is full of speculation, just like other arguments. This argument was meant to be special wasn't it? Turns out to be no better than any other argument as to the origin of the diary. Everything hinges on a single coincidence. Itís not good enough frankly.
What about the idea that someone forged the diary in the 20th century and placed it under the floorboards in Battlecrease? Well, perhaps that is something that can be discussed at the next Mad Hatterís Tea Party but not worth my time on this forum.
Why did Mike contact Doreen on 9 March 1992? Well if he was going to contact Doreen it had to be on one day out of 365 in any one year, or indeed 366 in the leap year. You could ask the same question about any day. But was he ever asked that question? I have no idea. Personally I very much doubt that his contacting Doreen had anything to do with the electrical work taking place in Battlecrease. I thought this new evidence was supposed to prove me wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. It's certainly failed to do that.
Just to round off this string of posts with a brief anecdote. This very week - on Tuesday in fact - I happened to mention, over the lunch period, to a colleague at work, someone who I used to work with in the office about three years ago. I hadn't seen this guy (or even thought about him) for the past two years and wasn't even sure if he still worked at my firm. Can you imagine my astonishment when about two or three hours later, at shortly after 3pm, when I was returning to the office from another building to which I had paid a short business visit, I walked past this very chap in the street at a location about a mile from my office? Checking his LinkedIn page when I returned to the office I discovered he had left my firm and moved to another firm which is based close to where I walked past him (thus explaining why he was there).
Now I thought that was quite freaky. So did my colleague to whom I told the story. And funnily enough even today when I was writing an email to someone within my firm who I hardly ever see or communicate with in any way, she walked into my office just as I was about to press send. I told her the above story and that it was clearly a week of coincidence!
That one is obviously less freaky than walking past someone in the street who I hadn't seen or spoken about or thought about for over two years when I had just been speaking about him earlier that day. But, hey, it's just one of those unlikely coincidences. We've all experienced them.
But based on a similar type of coincidence I am effectively supposed to believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper! For make no mistake. If that diary was retrieved from under the floorboards of Battlecrease then it was surely written by James Maybrick and if it was written by James Maybrick then he was surely Jack the Ripper. But, really, I need more than a mundane timesheet if I am going to even start to think that the diary was ever under a single floorboard in Battlecrease. I rather suspect the same is true for most people.