Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Observer]

To prove the artifacts weren’t in a hole for 103 years.

The only "hole", around here it seems is the one you keep digging for yourself

[Lombro2]

You can call me Sophie Shole!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well this is a bit embarrassing.

According to Robert Smith in the 2019 version of his book, at a 2018 meeting with James Johnston and Keith Skinner:

“Lyons had admitted on film that he had indeed been working at Battlecrease on 9^thMarch 1992…”

Now Caz tells us for the first time, six years after Smith’s published claim about Eddie having admitted being at Battlecrease on 9^th March 1992, that:

“having revisited Eddie's fascinating account from 2018, I can confirm that no actual dates were mentioned by him”

She then asks a strange question “how could they be?”, as if the idea of Eddie having mentioned that he was in Battlecrease on 9^th March 1992 was an obvious impossibility, despite it being the very thing we’d been assured had happened!

And still, incomprehensibly, no transcript is provided of what Eddie Lyons said in February 2018 let alone the video recording of the event. We have to rely on Caz’s own interpretation of what Eddie supposedly said. For some reason, we are not allowed to see for ourselves what he said and she doesn’t quote a single word spoken by him.

Unsubstantiated, unsupported claims are utterly worthless I’m afraid, as Smith’s unsubstantiated and unsupported 2019 claim proves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You’ve convinced yourself the Diary wasn’t in a cubby hole for 103 years. It should be easy to prove it and convince other people.

You even have another fairly valuable artifact in its own right you can use.

It’s been over 30 years now. What exactly are you waiting for?

It is pretty easy to prove, actually. We know the diary wasn’t written before 1945 due to the inclusion of the modern expression “one off instance”. Q.E.D. it couldn’t have been in a cubby hole for 103 years prior to 1992. End of story.

But the location of the diary wasn’t what Caz was talking in her most recent posts. Her only point was that Eddie Lyons was working in Battlecrease on 9^th March 1992. She hasn’t provided any evidence to support this claim but, even if it’s true, it’s still a million miles from Eddie Lyons finding (and stealing) anything in the house that day, let alone the diary of Jack the Ripper.

[Lombro2]

The journal “intrinsically”, like the gold watch cannot be proven to have been circulating for any part of 103 years.

[Lombro2]

You really think a thief is going to put himself at the scene of the crime.

You have no concept of the criminal classes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You really think a thief is going to put himself at the scene of the crime.

You have no concept of the criminal classes.

According to Caz, Eddie Lyons voluntarily and freely gave up sufficient information in 2018 which put himself "at the scene of the crime", or, rather, at Battlecrease on 9th March 1992.

I guess this must mean that there was no crime, otherwise, by your own logic, he wouldn't have done this.

[rjpalmer]

You really think a thief is going to put himself at the scene of the crime.

That's literally what C.A.B. and Robert Smith and Jay Hartley claimed he did do---unnecessarily placed himself at the scene of the crime.

Even the worst batter in MLB history didn't bat .000, but every post shows you defy the odds, Marcus!

[Lombro2]

What does Robert Smith and Jay Harley claiming it have to do with what was actually said versus implied.

I guess CAB this year is the only besides me who understands the criminal classes. “How can it be that he would do that?!” Exactly.

If that what Caz means, it makes me wonder who she’s been hanging out with lately.

[rjpalmer]

I guess CAB this year is the only besides me who understands the criminal classes. “How can it be that he would do that?!” Exactly.

That's not what she's saying, Marcus--but you do you.

She's clearly saying Eddie DID put himself at the scene of the alleged crime:

His memories were of a real event, and it was clearly the March job he was describing, because he said he was sent to the house with his mate Jim Bowling, but that it wasn't his job. ....

For whatever reason, it was the brief March job that Eddie was recalling, so the question is: what made that earlier occasion memorable, so long after the event, while the longer job in the July with the boss's son didn't even merit a mention?

But whatever. It doesn't matter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What does Robert Smith and Jay Harley claiming it have to do with what was actually said versus implied.

I guess CAB this year is the only besides me who understands the criminal classes. “How can it be that he would do that?!” Exactly.

If that what Caz means, it makes me wonder who she’s been hanging out with lately.

Echoing Roger, CAB wasn't saying what you think she was saying Lombro. Go back and read her post over again more carefully. She was talking about the impossibility of someone (anyone) remembering where they were on a specific date from 26 years earlier. But, like I said, that's precisely what we were told Eddie had been able to do.

[Lombro2]

Right! He remembered 26 years later because that was the day he stole the Diary from Battlecrease.

That’s what Caz was getting at. I should have known she wasn’t exhibiting inside knowledge of the criminal classes.

But just what are you getting at? He said. She said He didn’t say. But she said…. He described the right day but not the date so there’s no confession but he described the right day which he wouldn’t do if he was guilty….. So Lombo is wrong because he described the right day…which he said a criminal wouldn’t do.

26 years later.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock -- on the subject of 'housekeeping'---

Yet when Jones interviews Lyons in June 2018, Lyons now states that his "role was to drill holes through joists and put the electrical cables through them." (pg. 130)

I'm surprised Ike didn't challenge this.

I misread the passage, and it was actually James Coufoupoulos who recalled drilling the holes in the joists on 9 March. My bad. Withdrawn.

It's a pity we can't see any of the documentation because there are some significant differences between C.A.B.'s rendition of these events and how they were described by Dolgin & Jones.

“The Portus and Rhodes timesheets show that on this day [9 March] Eddie Lyons and Jim Bowling were working on a sewage farm in Skelmersdale in Lancashire. However, work on the site was held up as they were waiting for materials to arrive. As was the practice at Portus and Rhodes, the two electricians were redeployed to help with existing jobs.”

This appears to be somewhat misstated, no? The job had been suspended earlier, and there is no timesheet for Lyons. And that he was 'redeployed' appears to have been a later suggestion, not a fact.

“In June 2018 Eddie Lyons admitted to Christopher Jones and three other witnesses that he had been sent to help with the electrical work at Battlecrease on 9 March 1992. What is significant about this is that Lyons could have simply denied being at the house; in the absence of his name appearing on the timesheet it would have been almost impossible to disprove his statement.”

Dolgin & Jones, p. 129

Dolgin & Jones appear to be on the same wavelength as Lombro. If Lyons unnecessarily put himself at the alleged 'crime scene'--something a criminal wouldn't do----then Lombro's observation would be more appropriately posed to Caroline Brown.

RP

[rjpalmer]

It was more than a quarter of a century since he had worked in the house - and no dates were supplied to him, to help jog his memory or to 'shoehorn' him onto the site in March 1992 [we are talking about Keith Skinner, James Johnston and Chris Jones here, not Paul Feldman] and plant false memories.

It is of course correct that a skilled interviewer should not inadvertently lead the witness with loaded questions.

However, once Lyons gave his account, it would be entirely appropriate to ask follow-up questions to test whether he could have been confused since we know that he HAD BEEN at Dodd's house later that summer, and that 25 years have passed.

Simply asking, 'were you ever at Dodd's house before or later?' would not have been a leading question.

We also have no way of knowing what muddled thoughts Feldman and the rumor mill may have planted in his brain all those years ago. Sometimes if people keep saying or implying that you did something, and your memory is cloudy, you'll come to believe it.

But whatever. I'm resigned to never actually seeing any of the witness statements.

[Lombro2]

From that, you can tell if Eddie’s a thief?

So far you think he was led into a belief that he was there and got all muddled up. That means he didn’t commit a crime because he wouldn’t be led into a “muddled confession” to being there that hardly anyone believes in, whether it’s because he didn’t mention an exact date or because this is all beyond the capacity of a criminal.