Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[rjpalmer]

Absolutely, Herlock. They are utterly worthless to anyone who does not currently have free access to someone else's research. So you are free to dismiss anything I post on the subject, while speculating to your heart's content that it's all nonsense.

I'm getting used to it.

Hold on. Isn't your behavior in conflict with the established ethos of this forum?

We've all seen posters over the years make sensational claims but--when asked for the proof--claim they couldn't yet reveal their secret information. It was being saved for a future publication, etc.

These people have been uniformly given the bum's rush. I recall Ally Ryder, in particular, has had very little toleration for this sort of behavior.

If you aren't willing or able to give your full sources, shouldn't you refrain from making sensational claims until the time comes when you have more liberty to present all the necessary information?

Have a great day.

P.S. Let me just add that I would agree with anyone that you are fully within your rights to challenge the Barrett/Graham 'theory.' Absolutely. Bash away, if you can. But what isn't 'kosher,' in my view, is insisting that you can disprove it with secret conflicting information.

[rjpalmer]

Embarrassing, Herlock? For whom?

If I 'admit' to being at a Rod Stewart concert back in the late 80s/early 90s, I don't need to remember the date when I can describe the moment Rod signed my concert ticket while he was standing next to Rachel Hunter at the Hilton afterwards. Other evidence beyond my personal recall supplies the actual date. It's strange how RJ Palmer had the exact same problem with this logic.

I would hope that it would be embarrassing to Robert Smith (the publisher, not the singer).

Herlock was merely doing a bit of what you like to call "housekeeping." Smith's comment was imprecise and misleading.

Why shouldn't Herlock hold Smith to the same standards of precision that you hold your perceived opponents?

Let me ask this. If you were at two Rod Stewart concerts back in the late 80s, how do we know that you aren't confusing what Rod did at one concert with what Rod did at the other?

Eddy, if we believe him, was at Dodd's house twice, though there is nothing in the public record to show that he has ever acknowledging this. So your analogy isn't apt. It is incomplete and conveniently leaves out an important element.

If you didn't specify which Rod Stewart concert Rod belted out a cover of Tiptoe Through the Tulips, would it be kosher for Smith to report that it happened at the first concert? Or not even explicitly reveal that there was a chance of confusion since you had attended Rod Stewart concerts twice?

Let us be fair-minded, Caz. If a "Barrett Believer" pulled a stunt like this, you'd be the first person to swoop down and do a bit of cleaning up, no?

[caz]

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.

Eddie had read the diary books, and knew why he was 'in the frame', having an Anfield pub in common with Mike Barrett. But none of the books came close to pinning down the when of it. The 'crime scene' was speculated to date back before Eddie was employed by Portus & Rhodes [he was only with the firm from November 1991 to July 1992], while Shirley had assumed, just like Brian Rawes, that Eddie's "important" find in Dodd's house was made in July 1992, too late to have been Jack the Ripper's diary.

In short, Eddie had no idea, when describing his first visit to the house, that this could be dated independently of his recollections to the first ever recorded mention of Jack the Ripper's diary, providing a potential crime scene which now appeared to tick the right boxes.

Had Eddie known the full implications of his admission, I dare say he'd have been more wary. He didn't even need to be there in June 2018, after all, and could have pretended to have little or no memory of working in the actual house. He didn't know if his presence there might already have been established by dated work records retained by his former boss, Colin Rhodes, so it would have been foolish to deny anything outright. But nobody could have blamed him if he couldn't recall the details so many years later. Eddie did recall them, and consistently so, during separate recorded conversations.

[caz]

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”

Embarrassing, Herlock? For whom?

If I 'admit' to being at a Rod Stewart concert back in the late 80s/early 90s, I don't need to remember the date when I can describe the moment Rod signed my concert ticket while he was standing next to Rachel Hunter at the Hilton afterwards. Other evidence beyond my personal recall supplies the actual date. It's strange how RJ Palmer had the exact same problem with this logic.

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!

Why should Eddie have remembered the exact date, when I would need to go upstairs and rummage around to retrieve my dated - very dated - concert ticket. But I don't need to prove to myself I was there. Would you have expected Eddie to reel off "9th March 1992", for circumstances he was describing from memory in June 2018, in the drive of Battlecrease? Would that not have appeared odd to say the least?

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.

Absolutely, Herlock. They are utterly worthless to anyone who does not currently have free access to someone else's research. So you are free to dismiss anything I post on the subject, while speculating to your heart's content that it's all nonsense.

I'm getting used to it.

[rjpalmer]

That's fine by me. Palmer currently has the luxury of assuming whatever he likes and blaming it on not being given access to the documentary evidence that exists to punch a hole in his assumptions. I say he should enjoy such luxuries while they last and be glad that he doesn't have to face the facts he hasn't yet been faced with.

Yeah, yeah. When have we heard this before? Maybe from Paul Daniel in the Ripperologist, back when the public was treated to similar assurances about the Anne Graham provenance?


"I saw documents, signatures, photographs, videoed interviews, letter comparisons, even correspondence so sensitive that it can never be published. I saw three albums of photographs relating to the Graham/Maybrick family. There were more. In these albums were pictures of people dating from the last century to the present time...."

"....Exhausted, I left the apartment at about ten o'clock, with the deep impression that, unbelievably, the riddle of Jack the Ripper is closer to being solved than it ever has been before...."

Remind me. How did that work out for you?

Not that I was ever bitten, so have no reason to be twice shy, but some here were bitten. I applaud Lombro's eagerness to dust himself off and climb once again onto the back of the bucking bronc.

As for the rest of it, nothing you have written has alleviated my skepticism.

Eddie goes AWOL for two weeks--no record of where he was--but magically we know with certainty that he was at Dodd's house at the necessary time for the provenance to work. It sounds rather convenient.

I appreciate that Chris Jones has stated that Eddie Lyons admitted to being there, but why wouldn't he.... WAS there...later that summer.

As always, I'd need to hear the full interview. That's hardly unreasonable.

The desire not to ask leading questions is a legitimate one, but the flip side is that, after so many intervening years, it would be entirely plausible for Eddie not to have a clear memory of the dates (nor even seasons) nor to understand the full context and thus admit to having been there in March when he was really there in July. Floorboards or no floorboards. Skips or no skips.

It's not like we don't see similar confusion in the statements by Tim M-W, Dodgson, etc., nor a tendency for those promoting the theory to exaggerate or misinterpret what was actually said.

I'll wait for James J's documentary. I really don't expect to be eating my words, but I'll keep a bottle of ketchup on hand.

Ciao.

[caz]

I had it from Tom Mitchell that Eddie's name was on the timecards that summer---at least for July 1992:

Yes, but that's not June. Palmer claimed that:

Eddie Lyons only appears on the sheets for the week of 15 Jun - 19th.

He doesn't.

Whether it was June or July doesn't concern me.

Clearly not. But if it didn't concern Palmer to get the month right, perhaps it should have.

We keep hearing about work done in June/July 1992. What concerns me is that the public is never given access to Eddie's "admission" that he was also at Dodd's house in March----we only hear speculation that he was---often from the same people who assured us that Anne Graham's account of seeing the diary in the 1960s was credible and consistent. Later, it turned out that she was anything but consistent and her various statements were riddled with contradiction and implausibility.

Why is Palmer conflating 'speculation' about Anne Graham's unproven story, with Eddie's fully supported description of the work that was being done in Dodd's house on 9th March 1992? Eddie's account of being there when the Skelmersdale contract had to be put on hold was accepted by those present in June 2018: Keith, James and Chris Jones, two of whom don't find Anne's account credible. Eddie could not have known the circumstances he was able to recall if he hadn't actually been there. How hard has it got to be?

Eddie's last known whereabouts date to 7 March 1992. He is then off the 'radar' for at least two weeks---he isn't on the job on March 13th or even afterwards. I'm getting all of this from you.

I'm flattered that I'm trusted with it. Yes, I've been saying this forever. Eddie went mysteriously AWOL when Skelmersdale resumed on Friday 13th March. Perhaps he's superstitious.

So how in the heck do you know he even worked the week of March 9-14? We are told it is 'plausible' that he worked for a couple of hours at Dodd's house, but not only can't you produce any documentation to show it, you can't even show he was at any other job site that week or the next.

If he worked that week---not just Dodd's house but anywhere--shouldn't there be a record of it?

How is that not a mystery?

It is. That's the whole point. It was a mystery to Eddie's boss, Colin Rhodes, who couldn't account for his absence and had no record of him working anywhere else or going off sick around that time. He should have been back at Skem on the Friday with Jim Bowling, to complete the contract they had both been specifically taken on for the previous November. Colin explained to Keith why he'd have sent the pair to help out at Dodd's house on the Monday if the alternative was to pay them for hanging around the office/workshop doing nothing. There were no other jobs on record for them that week. But Colin was baffled and expressed his doubts that Eddie would have gone off on holiday in March with the Skem contract ongoing.

As far as the public knows, Eddie was in bed sick with the flu for three weeks or cruising the Mediterranean. Or laid-off.

But Colin had no evidence for any of this, and had no memory of laying Eddie off during that period. On the contrary, he had expected the timesheets to show him working again at Skem after the four-day break and could not explain why they didn't.

You might not like hearing it, but when I learn of a person whose job was suspended on March 7th--and his whereabouts aren't known for the next two weeks or more, I'm going to assume he either got laid off or took the opportunity to go on holiday.

That's fine by me. Palmer currently has the luxury of assuming whatever he likes and blaming it on not being given access to the documentary evidence that exists to punch a hole in his assumptions. I say he should enjoy such luxuries while they last and be glad that he doesn't have to face the facts he hasn't yet been faced with.

When I've asked about this in the past, someone like Jay Hartley usually rushes in to inform us that Eddie admitted to being there on 9 March.

But this only brings me back the original question: what was the context of this admission, and why can't we hear it? If, as Tom Mitchell tells us, Eddie was there on 17 July 1992, couldn't this be what he was remembering and 'admitting' to?

Nay, nay and thrice nay. Eddie has given the same account on separate occasions and has been consistent about what he remembers and what he doesn't, to a degree that is somewhat remarkable for what was supposed to be just "another day at 'tmill". He remembers a good deal more about his first visit to Dodd's house in 1992 than his last, as a former employee of Portus & Rhodes, who was only with the firm for eight months, and he isn't confusing the two occasions.

[John Wheat]

There is zero evidence the Diary was written by Maybrick and there is zero evidence he ever owned the watch.

[Lombro2]

Eddie got the equivalent of 40 bucks for the diary.

I’m sure he’d to almost anything for 40 bucks.

[rjpalmer]

Thieves also give their stolen literary material to “literary” agents like Mike who pass them on to other real literary agents.

I can't say that your theory has much going for it, but I suppose it is mildly more plausible than C.A.B.'s theory that someone sold the Confession of Jack the Ripper, found under the floorboards of a Victorian mansion, to a stranger or near stranger for twenty-five pounds.

In your version, Mike was Eddie's "literary agent" and presumably it was Eddie and not Mike who blew through Barrett's royalty cheques.

Thanks. I think I've heard enough.

[Lombro2]

Thieves also give their stolen literary material to “literary” agents like Mike who pass them on to other real literary agents. Or maybe you know something else.

Just like thieves give or sell their stolen watches to people who sell watches.

[Lombro2]

You think they sell to criminals?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like I said, some people have no concept of the criminal classes.

And some people have their own minds and think for themselves, and have their own approach which other people, with the same premise to begin with, don’t agree with.

So I don’t really engage with Anti-Barrett theorists or Maybrickian interested in thieves and fences.

Might as well talk to Socratic people who one minute say Michael made thousands in profit when he’s a forger but then only made a dollar as a fence.

Or you're using the word "fence" incorrectly. Ever think of that?

[rjpalmer]

Might as well talk to Socratic people who one minute say Michael made thousands in profit when he’s a forger but then only made a dollar as a fence.

Who are you arguing with? Yourself?

You're the one who keeps calling Barrett and the Graham's "fences." Fences sell stolen goods.

I call Barrett and Graham literary forgers. Literary forgers contact literary agents. That's what Barrett did.

Don't you understand the criminal classes?

[Lombro2]

Like I said, some people have no concept of the criminal classes.

And some people have their own minds and think for themselves, and have their own approach which other people, with the same premise to begin with, don’t agree with.

So I don’t really engage with Anti-Barrett theorists or Maybrickian interested in thieves and fences.

Might as well talk to Socratic people who one minute say Michael made thousands in profit when he’s a forger but then only made a dollar as a fence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The main one being they’re fencing a stolen item.

I don’t know how a simple heist with one suspect gets turned into an Agatha Christie investigation.

After you get Eddie to reconstruct the day of the heist to see if he really is a thief, you can get the fences to reconstruct the provenance of their goods to see if they’re really fences.

So we should disregard everything Eddie Lyons is supposed to have said to James Johnston and Keith Skinner?

If that's the case you should tell Caz, not me, because she's the one relying on it.