Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike,

I'm getting somewhere.

A correspondent, Smith's book in hand, has informed me that a night heater (singular) went in on the first floor on Tuesday, 9 June. (Jones & Dolgin mentioned multiple heaters being moved around, but perhaps this means the new one?) That floor is now done.

July was as previously reported.

Several other days were worked in June, but it was all on the ground floor for lighting. The cellar was used for the wiring, so this would seem to be what Eddie was remembering.

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

Ciao.

[rjpalmer]

Well, the electrical work was definitely done in March 1992 and the heaters were installed in July 1992 so I don't know what more sense I can make of it than that. Are you suggesting that these (or similar, then, if necessary) events did not happen and Colin Rhodes simply bunged some random invoices out to pay the wages???

Ike, Old Man, I'm attempting to get at the truth. Bear with me.

As far as I know, there are only three relevant timesheets. One in March, one in June, and one in July 1992.

The first (9 March) was reproduced in Robert Smith's book.

The third (21 July) was given on this forum by James J:

"The only other timesheet where Eddie's name appears is dated the week ending 21.7.92. Arthur Rigby's name is nowhere to be seen, and the description of work conducted reads; 'Alternator LT Wiring + DB. Check Low Tests - Ground Floor'. This cannot be the work Eddie described during our interview."

Note: ground floor, not first floor, so your current claim that "the heater were installed in July" seems to contradict the July timesheet.

You must mean June.

However, the timesheet for June I cannot find (I've seen but do not currently own Robert Smith's book) and it is only stated as matter of faith on this forum that the heaters were installed in June. I'm not insisting that is correct or incorrect. But since the accounts given by Jones & Johnston contradict each other, how is the reading public supposed to know which is accurate?

That's what I'm asking/attempting to determine.

I guess I'll wait for the documentary; by no means arse yourself.

RP

[Iconoclast]

This issue is when someone's memory starts out vague & uncertain and then grows more detailed and specific with the passing of time; this is what might suggest the 'lost in the mall' syndrome.
This is why Mr. Powell's account, quite interesting in its original form, of having met a nurse in Australia in the 1970s who claimed she had Jack the Ripper's Diary began to lose all adherents as his tale grew more and more detailed.
I think you'll need to work out the obvious contradictions in the accounts given by James J vs by Dolgin & Jones.
The latter claim that the work in July (I suspect they mean June) was on the ground floor, whereas James claims it was finishing the installments on the first floor.
I wasn't there, but I imagine late March and April in Liverpool can be as bloody cold as the diarist described it, so why the electricians would simply do the wiring in March but not install the heaters and leave Mr. Dodd to freeze his tail off is something of a mystery to me. And then install the heaters at the beginning of summer?
Make it make sense.

Well, the electrical work was definitely done in March 1992 and the heaters were installed in July 1992 so I don't know what more sense I can make of it than that. Are you suggesting that these (or similar, then, if necessary) events did not happen and Colin Rhodes simply bunged some random invoices out to pay the wages???

The only issue we need answers to is whether or not Eddie Lyons and/or Jim Bowling were down at Battlecrease House on the morning of March 9, 1992. The finer details growing over time may very well speak of false memory syndrome, but are we saying that false memory syndrome cannot furnish details which were not true whilst the event itself was true? "I threw up at my brother's wedding!". "No you didn't, you only had a few pints". "Oh, maybe I wasn't my brother's wedding at all, then?".

Make it make sense, RJ.

Please.

[rjpalmer]

Drilling holes in the joists is exactly what would happen when electrical groundwork was being conducted so such a memory is trivial in the extreme (for an electrician). The issue is not that aspect of his memory - the issue is was he there or not?

This issue is when someone's memory starts out vague & uncertain and then grows more detailed and specific with the passing of time; this is what might suggest the 'lost in the mall' syndrome.

This is why Mr. Powell's account, quite interesting in its original form, of having met a nurse in Australia in the 1970s who claimed she had Jack the Ripper's Diary began to lose all adherents as his tale grew more and more detailed.

I think you'll need to work out the obvious contradictions in the accounts given by James J vs by Dolgin & Jones.

The latter claim that the work in July (I suspect they mean June) was on the ground floor, whereas James claims it was finishing the installments on the first floor.

I wasn't there, but I imagine late March and April in Liverpool can be as bloody cold as the diarist described it, so why the electricians would simply do the wiring in March but not install the heaters and leave Mr. Dodd to freeze his tail off is something of a mystery to me. And then install the heaters at the beginning of summer?

Make it make sense.

[rjpalmer]

Unless I am suffering from false memory syndrome, no storage heaters were installed in March 1992 - only the electrical groundwork was carried out (hence the floorboards almost certainly needing to come up). I imagine that this is how it starts: a false fact is put out there as a truth and it is so trivial that the hearer assumes it to be true - like the inverse of Hitler's terrible lie which is so huge no-one can believe it isn't true because they can't believe anyone would be so audacious as to tell so huge an untruth.

There is a contradiction in the accounts available to the public, for this not what Jones and Dolgin describe in their book, based on conversations between Chris Jones and Paul Dodd.

They write (pg 129-130) that a pre-existing storage heater was moved from the hall or nursery and two others added on March 9 and 10th. Two days seems like a long time (to me) for merely the wiring. Jones also states that "few floorboards were disturbed in that room, and the ones that were moved were floorboards that had already been previously lifted by Paul Dodd when he had completed some earlier work," which clashes with C.A.B.'s claim that 'virgin' floorboards were accessed.

By contrast (?) James J. states that the storage heaters were installed on June 9th. Were these additional storage heaters? Why the conflict?

Either way, it again raises the same question: was Lyons aware that the job was done in two phases? Does he ever anywhere state he was at the job TWICE? Because this, ultimately, is what matters. I see nothing in the available transcript to indicate he appreciates there were two different visits separated by three months.

That's the key point and dancing around it by referencing The Matrix is a rather bizarre way to proceed.

What is unavoidable is that Lyons's memory grew over time.

I quote James J's transcript:

(29.09.2015)

JJ: Ok, can you tell me what the work you did at Battlecrease House was?
EL: It was something to do with, I think it was storage heaters or something.

---

A year later in 2016:

EL: Yeah so, I think I was, we worked on the first floor, the ground floor and then I think there was a
cellar underneath. Now whether we were just bloody looking in the cellar, I think it was just full of
boats or canoes or something. We were looking maybe, just for ways to get cables in or something, I
don’t know. I don’t think we actually done any work in the cellar.

JJ: Ok.

EL: I think we had floorboards up, on maybe the first floor.

--

Lots of *I thinks* and maybes and I don't knows, but more detail than the previous year.

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)

How do you account for this remarkable improvement in memory as time passes?

It's somewhat reminiscent of our friend Steve Powell.

It worries me, Old Boy, it worries me.

RP

PS. I apologize if you think I have "skin in the game" while you objectively accuse James Maybrick of murder, but that's the way it is. Very few people care to converse with the Maybrick theorists, so you're stuck with me.

Ciao.

[Iconoclast]

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.

You aren't going to like this, RJ, but such a firm - nay strident - suggestion would have been better coming from someone with somewhat less skin in the game than you? Obviously, it suits your position to argue for 'false memory syndrome' but there is a world of difference between arguing for something and that something actually applying in any given situation. If not, then we would have to accept that every memory we have ever had is simply false memory built up around stories others have told. A sort of personal Matrix where nothing we remember was ever actually properly true. I assume that Loftus and Coan were arguing that false memory syndrome is possible under certain conditions but that no-one should be building an argument on it in case it was not false memory syndrome?

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.

Or, indeed, for not seeing what is right there in front and centre - for example, the famous dancing gorilla clip.

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.

Again, my dear readers should take note that - inadvertent or not - this is not a guaranteed outcome of any interaction with others: it is simply a phenomenon which applies under certain conditions rather than all conditions.

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.

Unless I am suffering from false memory syndrome, no storage heaters were installed in March 1992 - only the electrical groundwork was carried out (hence the floorboards almost certainly needing to come up). I imagine that this is how it starts: a false fact is put out there as a truth and it is so trivial that the hearer assumes it to be true - like the inverse of Hitler's terrible lie which is so huge no-one can believe it isn't true because they can't believe anyone would be so audacious as to tell so huge an untruth.

That's how this member of the reading public sees it.

And you're welcome to your position, though I wish you'd made that clearer when you started typing as it sounded like some tablets of doom were coming down the mountain in my direction.

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.

Drilling holes in the joists is exactly what would happen when electrical groundwork was being conducted so such a memory is trivial in the extreme (for an electrician). The issue is not that aspect of his memory - the issue is was he there or not?

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 have to assume that 'JK' is Jimmy Coufopolous (or 'Jimmy the Greek'). You evidently have now got access to the tape so you're ahead of me on this one but I'm sure James J was working overtime to avoid 'leading the witness', as it were.

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.

Not sure to whom this last comment is directed but - if it is to me - I assure you I don't care one iota what anyone says. We both know, RJ, that only the truth matters here not idle speculation and deeply-dug inference into unstable walls of very muddy fields.

Keep 'em coming, RJ - you keep hoying them ower and I just keep batting 'em back again!

Ike

[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.