Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[rjpalmer]

I also accept that Eddie Lyons said on record (though he didn't realise he was being recorded) that he was there, though I still need to verify that for myself by listening to the whole of the video.

Well, so much for ever seeing or hearing the recording.

As I understand it, you're describing an illegal act under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000.

It's legal to secretly record someone for one's private use, but you can't share that recording with a third party without Lyons' permission.

This only increases my suspicion about the value of the 'admission.' If the person interviewing Lyons suspects him of a crime and is trying to coax a confession out of him, it seems unlikely to me that they would also have placed all their cards on the table and informed Lyons that the surviving documentation shows he was at Dodd's house in July and not March. There would be an element of trickery involved.

But of course, I don't know because I can't ever hear the tape without Lyons' consent.

[rjpalmer]

Equally, you can't say that Rhodes did not know where Lyons was that week because that information has never been asked of him (to my knowledge). He just wasn't on any timesheets. Maybe he took annual leave. Maybe he rang in sick. We don't know. Unless Colin's son has kept the paperwork, I don't think we'll ever know.

It's an inference drawn from C.A.B.'s claim that Lyons "mysteriously" disappeared or absented himself.

Got to run.

Ciao.

[John Wheat]

Someone has a Victorian Diary and confesses to having wrote it. It's really not very likely that they weren't involved in the writing of it. But some say couldn't be Mike Barrett. Not a published writer and conman no not a chance.

[Iconoclast]

Well, so much for ever seeing or hearing the recording.
As I understand it, you're describing an illegal act under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000.
It's legal to secretly record someone for one's private use, but you can't share that recording with a third party without Lyons' permission.
This only increases my suspicion about the value of the 'admission.' If the person interviewing Lyons suspects him of a crime and is trying to coax a confession out of him, it seems unlikely to me that they would also have placed all their cards on the table and informed Lyons that the surviving documentation shows he was at Dodd's house in July and not March. There would be an element of trickery involved.
But of course, I don't know because I can't ever hear the tape without Lyons' consent.

Don't be so over-dramatic, RJ. There is nothing in UK law which prevents recording in public or where an individual does not have a right to the expectation of privacy. Does Lyons have a right to the expectation of privacy if he is talking to two or three people outside someone's house? I would suggest not.

When I have typed-up transcripts, I have deliberately redacted anything which I felt an individual would not want repeated or reported. I think that's fair. If someone said they were somewhere at some point in time and they said it in a very public place, I think their reasonable right to privacy has been well and truly foregone.

I should also add that it was my assumption that he didn't know he was being recorded. I could be wrong.

Finally, you are not prevented from publishing such recorded moments (where would YouTube be if you were?) - you simply leave yourself open to being sued for having done so should someone take offence. As long as you don't give people grounds to sue you, there are unlikely to be any consequences of quoting what someone has said in public and backing it up with the evidence if required to.

[Iconoclast]

Someone has a Victorian Diary and confesses to having wrote it. It's really not very likely that they weren't involved in the writing of it. But some say couldn't be Mike Barrett. Not a published writer and conman no not a chance.

I think we have established that Mike Barrett could have done it. We are now at the really interesting bit where we await some concrete evidence that he did.

[rjpalmer]

Finally, you are not prevented from publishing such recorded moments (where would YouTube be if you were?)

The youtube videos you are referencing involve someone with a phone camera out in the open in a public space.

That's different from buttonholing someone on his porch with a white van parked across the street or the interviewer wearing a 'wire' (or whatever other strange scenario you are suggesting).

It's certainly odd how you keep making these positive assertions only to come back and admit they were "assumptions."

If your assumption is correct, they should take legal advice.

My main point remains: it makes me even more skeptical that Lyons' "admission" was made within the framework of full disclosure, but I have no way of knowing.

But all this chit-chat is straying far away from my original post. Feldman's theory that two electricians where in cahoots doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

Add to this C.A.B.'s bombshell claim that Feldman supposedly offered financial inducement for Anne Graham to support his theories and who the heck really knows what went on?

I'll drop back by in a day or three.

[John Wheat]

I think we have established that Mike Barrett could have done it. We are now at the really interesting bit where we await some concrete evidence that he did.

You could say that. But I would say where is the evidence James Maybrick wrote the diary?

[Iconoclast]

You could say that. But I would say where is the evidence James Maybrick wrote the diary?

Hang about, Wheato. It's on its way.

[Iconoclast]

The youtube videos you are referencing involve someone with a phone camera out in the open in a public space.

That's different from buttonholing someone on his porch with a white van parked across the street or the interviewer wearing a 'wire' (or whatever other strange scenario you are suggesting).

It's certainly odd how you keep making these positive assertions only to come back and admit they were "assumptions."

If your assumption is correct, they should take legal advice.

My main point remains: it makes me even more skeptical that Lyons' "admission" was made within the framework of full disclosure, but I have no way of knowing.

But all this chit-chat is straying far away from my original post. Feldman's theory that two electricians where in cahoots doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

Add to this C.A.B.'s bombshell claim that Feldman supposedly offered financial inducement for Anne Graham to support his theories and who the heck really knows what went on?

I'll drop back by in a day or three.

I have been informed that Lyons consented to being recorded so my assumption was indeed incorrect.

[John Wheat]

Hang about, Wheato. It's on its way.

Okay I'll believe it when I see it.

[Iconoclast]

Okay I'll believe it when I see it.

Don't get too excited, mind - I find there is absolutely nothing that can't be ignored, derided, or plain dismissed regardless of its relative strength towards any given argument.

If you are set against Maybrick today, there is unlikely to ever be a day when you will shift your view (as with all other candidates). We will remain in a terrible loop, but I will have got my bit off my chest.

[John Wheat]

Don't get too excited, mind - I find there is absolutely nothing that can't be ignored, derided, or plain dismissed regardless of its relative strength towards any given argument.

If you are set against Maybrick today, there is unlikely to ever be a day when you will shift your view (as with all other candidates). We will remain in a terrible loop, but I will have got my bit off my chest.

I guess you'd know.