Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[rjpalmer]

We are told that Paul Dodd recalls a conversation with Rigby who was worried that he might be implicated in theft and volunteered information that Bowling and Lyons knew something about it.

But where is this recorded? Where do we find out where Paul Dodd has said this?

How do we know it's not someone on this forum misremembering something?

Where is the evidence?

Rhetorical question.

Is Paul Feldman's account in The Final Chapter even credible?

I have my doubts.

Years ago, I heard from people who had met Feldman (Stewart Evans & Martin Fido) that he was infamous for jumping to conclusions. Even Feldman's own book seemingly confirms this. His brain was going a hundred miles an hour while the actual evidence was limping along at fifty metres an hour.

So how do I know that Feldman is accurately quoting Lyons from memory when Lyons supposedly said, "What is my confession worth?"

The only source for this is Feldman, and he's not the most reliable person who ever lived.

Could Feldman have misconstrued what Lyons actually meant or said?

Feldman's account on pages 148-150 doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. It was his FIRST contact --the bloke who called his home phone number--who had been acting as a sort of amateur detective and who claimed he had information for Feldman. He didn't want his name used. However, he was willing to go on video tape--as long as his name wasn't used----which is odd. Wouldn't the other electricians have known him by sight when the video tape eventually aired? He then worries Feldman by going on & on about how much money he will receive for this interview. This is the bloke who (to me) seems like he was in it for the money.

It wasn't until several weeks later that Feldman calls up the second electrician--the one being accused (obviously Eddie Lyons)--- who doesn't actually admit to anything. He then (according to Feldman) said "What is my confession worth?"

That's all we hear about his conversation. And Feldman is the only source.

Feldman then jumps to the conclusion that the two men were in cahoots, but is this likely?

It's a fairly bizarre suggestion, isn't it?

Why would someone agree to be anonymously accused of theft and also agree to confess to theft? Why would anyone think such a plan would work--and that he would receive money instead of a visit from the police?

It's far-fetched as hell and it's coming from the same guy who believed that Mike & Anne weren't Mike & Anne but were connected to MI5. So, my apologies if I'm skeptical.

In short, I now have doubts about the accuracy of Feldman's original account. Paul Dodd also believed an electrician tried to shakedown Feldman, but he could only have gotten this belief from Feldman himself. And the money grubber appears to have been the FIRST electrician---not the second one.

Meanwhile, Chris Jones describes a friendly and a cooperative Eddie Lyons. He even allowed his picture to be included in his book. He found Lyons denials plausible and believable.

That's strange behavior and incompatible (in my view) with what is being implied about him.

I can't "square" this cooperative behavior with Lyons stealing The Diary of Jack the Ripper. I can't even square it with an attempt to shake-down Paul Feldman. If he had been up to nefarious deeds 30 years ago, why wouldn't he just tell today's diary researchers to take a hike?

He's cooperative--Anne Graham isn't.

That should be worth something.

So, in conclusion, how do I know that Lyons wasn't being wrongly accused by a coworker who wouldn't even give his name, and Feldman jumped to the wrong conclusion that the two men were in cahoots?

That makes more sense to me than Feldman's conspiracy theory.

RP

[Scott Nelson]

It could be that Lyons didn't steal anything, he just went into the Saddle with a story he just heard.

[rjpalmer]

I don't think there is any credible evidence that Lyons even worked that day and it's probable that he's just the victim of malicious rumors.

[erobitha]

I don't think there is any credible evidence that Lyons even worked that day and it's probable that he's just the victim of malicious rumors.

Except his own testimony that he was there that day.

[rjpalmer]

Except his own testimony that he was there that day.

Here we go again.

What worries the skeptics is that nobody ever directly quotes Lyons nor gives the full context of his 'admission.'

There is documentation that Lyons WAS at Battlecrease---later that summer.

So quizzed years later, why wouldn't he admit to having been there?

That's the issue.

Did he specifically state he was there on 9 March? Did he admit to being at Dodd's house on two separate occasions?

If not, how do we don't know he's admitting to something that didn't happen?

The same questions have already been put to Caz and Ike, but it looks like we'll need to wait for the documentary. No one seems to know, nor are able to quote him directly with the necessary context.