Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike,

You're not going to like this--in fact, I think you're going to hate it---but after reading over the original posts by James J and 'David Orsam,' I suspect that Mr. Lyons might be the 'victim' of a false memory, or a partially false memory.

The unfortunate reality is that we humans are susceptible to developing false memories--even to admitting to things that didn't happen---as seen in the famous 'Lost in the Mall' study.

Lost in the mall technique - Wikipedia

In the experiment above, it is called a 'technique' and the false memory is deliberately planted in the subject's mind, but it can also happen inadvertently.

Lyons was at Dodd's house in July, but with the rumor mill accusing him of stealing the diary during the earlier job (9 March) and with repeatedly being asked about the events of March, and with storage heaters being installed both in March and July leading to obvious similarities between the two different events, it would have been a very easy matter for an entirely innocent Lyons to have succumbed to these suggestions over time, and to ultimately admit to having been there on the day in question, when in reality it was a false admission based on a combination of dim and uncertain memories, confusion over a later/similar event, coupled with inadvertent suggestions by others that he had been there.

That's how this member of the reading public sees it. It is worrying that Lyons' memory seems to have grown over time--which would be characteristic of this 'implanting.' At first, he only had an uncertain recollection of the floorboards having been lifted---he's hemming and hawing and doesn't seem to recall much---but by the last of several interviews (when Jones was present) he was now describing drilling holes in the joists. That's one heck of an extension of his original statement. Either his memory grew better as time passed--which is not plausible--or the memory was 'developed,' based on other, unrelated events, such as the July job.

James J can be congratulated for trying to avoid asking leading questions, but the downside of doing so is that it becomes uncertain when Lyons fully understands what was being asked. The connective tissue is someone called 'J.K.' (Johnston deliberately doesn't give his name so as not to influence Lyons) and Lyons has a dim memory of a younger electrician, but because the question has no context, it's unclear from Lyons' answer if he is even saying that 'JK' was at either job site. He doesn't know the reason for the question.

I realize that people don't like their work criticized or their beliefs challenged, but it is an unfortunate and unavoidable reality when investigating any contentious subject.

Regards,

RP

[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.

[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]

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

Okay I'll believe it when I see it.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Iconoclast]

There's the difference between us, Ike. I used to schedule employees, and if someone asked me 20 or 25 years on where I sent employee X for a couple of hours on a given job site, I'd think they were mad. Certainly, it is entirely reasonable to trust that this was Rhodes's method of operation, but that's different than saying he had a specific memory of sending Lyons to Dodd's house on 9 March. From what I've read from your posts, and the posts of C.A.B. and James J, Rhodes was trying to recreate what had happened by referencing his surviving paperwork. I suspect he said he would have sent Lyons there if he was cooling his heels--not that he had a specific memory or any evidence of having done so. And the corker is that he doesn't actually have any idea where Lyons was that week.

I don't think I ever said Rhodes said he definitely sent Lyons (and Bowling) to Battlecrease House on March 9,1992, or indeed on any other day. If I did, I was quite wrong. I was merely reporting what he said to Keith and Coral in the early 2000s that that sort of thing would have been the sort of thing he would do. I think he said something like, 'to stop them cluttering up the office'.

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.

[rjpalmer]

I also trust Colin Rhodes' recollections that he sent his idle employees on support roles to occupy them on days when he had no other major work to give them.

There's the difference between us, Ike. I used to schedule employees, and if someone asked me 20 or 25 years on where I sent employee X for a couple of hours on a given job site, I'd think they were mad.

Certainly, it is entirely reasonable to trust that this was Rhodes's method of operation, but that's different than saying he had a specific memory of sending Lyons to Dodd's house on 9 March. From what I've read from your posts, and the posts of C.A.B. and James J, Rhodes was trying to recreate what had happened by referencing his surviving paperwork. I suspect he said he would have sent Lyons there if he was cooling his heels--not that he had a specific memory or any evidence of having done so. And the corker is that he doesn't actually have any idea where Lyons was that week.

It's a bit like Martin Earl, 25 years on, giving his general method of operation and it is now being marketed as a clear memory of intimately describing to Barrett every detail of the maroon diary. It's one of the pitfalls of carrying on an investigation after the trail is cold. No one can still recall a series of mundane events.

RP