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.

[Iconoclast]

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

Maybe I am misremembering this, but I could have sworn Chris Jones (who was there for some of the meeting with Lyons outside Battlecrease House) had actually stated in one of his books that Lyons had admitted to having been sent down there (I don't recall how it was phrased, however).

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

That is not in debate. It was July 17, 1992. We know this because this time he is on the timesheet written up by Colin Rhodes (and Jim Bowling reported a conversation with Lyons around that time - I think he got it out by about a month).

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

The debate is not around whether he was ever there - we know he was on July 17, 1992. The debate is around whether Colin Rhodes sent him (and Jim Bowling) down there on March 9, 1992, to assist Arthur Rigby and Jimmy 'The Greek' Coufopolous (who were on the timesheet for that day). According to Lyons, Rhodes had done exactly that.

That's the issue.

So, no, that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether he was there in March as well as July 1992.

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

For that, we would need to turn to Chris Jones' account - or someone could watch the video of it (just not me right now).

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

I think you missed out a negative there, RJ. How do we know he's not admitting to something that didn't happen (if that was your intended question), I don't think we can know - we have to rely on the truth of his claim and obviously that is a quantity we have almost none of; just claims and rumours and what have you.

The same questions have already been put to Caz and Ike, but it looks like we'll need to wait for the documentary.

Or for someone who has the video to find the time to watch it and type up what he actually said? I remember seeing a snippet of the video a while back and Lyons' amazement at being told about the 'double event' of March 9, 1992, was rather priceless - there was a man who genuinely could not believe what he had just been told. In your world, RJ, I think that's what you would call 'interesting'.

No one seems to know, nor are able to quote him directly with the necessary context.

Well, returning to the source [thank you, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh], I think Chris Jones may be the source you're looking for, RJ.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike,

I'm sorry to have to say this--and thanks for yesterday's football discussion--but you very recently complained about the tediousness of tit-for-tat exchanges, and yet here you are with a tedious tit-for-tat exchange which is little more than white noise.

I referred to Chris Jones in my original post, from which you could have rationally inferred that I had already consulted Jones's book, pg. 130, which includes the forementioned photograph of a friendly and cooperative Eddie Lyons. An attitude of cooperation that contrasts favorably with the secretive and non-cooperative behavior of Anne Graham in recent years.

Yes, Chris Jones does also claim that Ed was there on 9 March. Absolutely.

But this does not put my mind at ease.

Mr. Jones does exactly what you & Caroline Brown do; he paraphrases Lyons 'admission' of having allegedly been at the house on 9 March but does not give enough of the context of the conversation to resolve my concern--the very real possibility that after the passing of many years, Lyons is confused about the chronology and is admitting to being there on 9 March when he is actually remembering having been there in July. It is obviously a FACT that when quizzed by Feldman all those years earlier, the electricians were referring to events that happened in the summer of 1992 and not in March 1992. The driveway incident, etc. with Lyons on the scene. It would be easy enough to inadvertently repeat this mistake when quizzing Lyons years later.

Nowhere in any account does Lyons admit to being at the house TWICE. Surely you can appreciate the importance of this?

The concern is that once the great coincidence of 9 March 1992 was noticed by Mr. Skinner, it was deemed desirable in some quarters to shoehorn Lyons onto the job site in March when he was actually there in July. I don't mean that in an accusatory way, but it's the best way to describe it.

Jones and Dolgin write:

"The Portus and Rhodes show that on this day [9 March] Eddie Lyons and Jim Bowling were working on a sewage farm in Skelmersdale in Lancaster. However, the 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."

Hold the phone.

This does NOT truly agree with what is now being claimed by Caroline Brown. There is no timesheet for Lyons for Monday and we are told that the job at Skelmersdale was suspended on the previous Friday, not on Monday the 9th, so claiming Lyons was 'redeployed' on Monday comes across as inadvertently misleading--the result of a muddle of speculation and assumption.

The fact is no one really has any idea where Lyons was for the entire week of March 9-13th, his name not appearing on any other work order, and the most logical conclusion is that he had been laid off the previous Friday when the job was suspended and what we have is a muddle of bad memories after the period of many years. According to C.A.B., Rhodes admitted that Lyons' whereabouts that week was a mystery. He's AWOL.

Why would Rhodes have called Lyons in on Monday if the job in Skelmersdale had been suspended on Friday?

What I want to know is did Lyons admit to being at Dodd's house twice, and whether he was explicitly told he was on the timecard for July, and could that possibly be what he was remembering?

This is not an unreasonable question or series of questions, especially considering the lack of documentation putting him there. If you can't grasp the validity of these questions, and the importance of hearing the entire interview, I am confident Keith Skinner would understand.

I'll wait for the tape.

RP

[rjpalmer]

It's important to mention that Lyons does refer to floorboards and the floorboards already having been lifted (which certainly does support the idea that he was there on the 9th) and drilling holes through the joists.

My next question would be to know the exact nature of the work done in July 1992, and whether any of this could reasonably describe the work done on that day. I imagine an electrician or an electrician's helper would drill countless holes in his life, so his memory of drilling these particular holes is impressive.

If Lyons was there, and remembers the floorboards already being lifted, does this not support Paul Dodd's account, given many years earlier, of having done the prep work himself?

RP

[Iconoclast]

Yes, Chris Jones does also claim that Ed was there on 9 March. Absolutely.

And he does this because Lyons has said so, presumably? Without sitting through the 58 minutes of the video, I don't currently know what Lyons actually said, I'm afraid, but Jones (no scrapbook friend, I think you'd agree) must have had strong grounds for saying so otherwise he surely would have come up with the same caveats you just have?

But this does not put my mind at ease.

I'm not your shrink, RJ. Your own personal dark night of the soul may well have to go on a wee bit longer yet.

Nowhere in any account does Lyons admit to being at the house TWICE. Surely you can appreciate the importance of this?

Well, yes, that would be obvious.

The concern is that once the great coincidence of 9 March 1992 was noticed by Mr. Skinner, it was deemed desirable in some quarters to shoehorn Lyons onto the job site in March when he was actually there in July. I don't mean that in an accusatory way, but it's the best way to describe it.

Prior to Lyons actually admitting to it, shoehorning would be about as good as it got, I guess.

Jones and Dolgin write:

"The Portus and Rhodes show that on this day [9 March] Eddie Lyons and Jim Bowling were working on a sewage farm in Skelmersdale in Lancaster. However, the 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."

Lyons and Bowling were not on the Skem job on the Monday (I forget why) so they would have had no choice but to turn up at P&R office where Colin Rhodes would be niggled that he had two employees with nothing to do. In this situation, it is perfectly feasible he sent the two likely lads down to the nearest job which ws - I assume - Battlecrease House. Employees in the UK do not get laid off just because there was no specific work for them that day.

Hold the phone.

The 'phone is on hold.

This does NOT truly agree with what is now being claimed by Caroline Brown. There is no timesheet for Lyons for Monday and we are told that the job at Skelmersdale was suspended on the previous Friday, not on Monday the 9th, so claiming Lyons was 'redeployed' on Monday comes across as inadvertently misleading--the result of a muddle of speculation and assumption.

The job at Skem was halted on the previous Friday which - as I said above - led to Bowling and Lyons turning up at the office as they had no assigned work that day. Maybe they played tiddlywinks or maybe they got sent to Battlecrease House.

The fact is no one really has any idea where Lyons was for the entire week of March 9-13th, his name not appearing on any other work order, and the most logical conclusion is that he had been laid off the previous Friday when the job was suspended and what we have is a muddle of bad memories after the period of many years. According to C.A.B., Rhodes admitted that Lyons' whereabouts that week was a mystery. He's AWOL.

Lyons is intriguingly AWOL, it is true, but he wouldn't have been laid off that quickly. To be laid off, he would have had to go through a redundancy process of some weeks in length (even though he was only four months in with P&R). We aren't in America now, RJ!

Why would Rhodes have called Lyons in on Monday if the job in Skelmersdale had been suspended on Friday?

He wouldn't. Lyons would just arrive.

What I want to know is did Lyons admit to being at Dodd's house twice, and whether he was explicitly told he was on the timecard for July, and could that possibly be what he was remembering?

Surely Chris Jones could discern this, RJ, and clearly did not?

This is not an unreasonable question or series of questions, especially considering the lack of documentation putting him there. If you can't grasp the validity of these questions, and the importance of hearing the entire interview, I am confident Keith Skinner would understand.

I'm afraid that chapter's a long way off yet, RJ.

I'll wait for the tape.RP

I'd ring your shrink, mate.

[Iconoclast]

It's important to mention that Lyons does refer to floorboards and the floorboards already having been lifted (which certainly does support the idea that he was there on the 9th) and drilling holes through the joists.

My next question would be to know the exact nature of the work done in July 1992, and whether any of this could reasonably describe the work done on that day. I imagine an electrician or an electrician's helper would drill countless holes in his life, so his memory of drilling these particular holes is impressive.

If Lyons was there, and remembers the floorboards already being lifted, does this not support Paul Dodd's account, given many years earlier, of having done the prep work himself?

RP

If me auntie had bollocks, she'd be me uncle, RJ.

How many twists and turns can one theory warrant?

[rjpalmer]

If me auntie had bollocks, she'd be me uncle, RJ.

How many twists and turns can one theory warrant?

No twist and turns, Ike, other than those that appear in your knickers when I ask the legitimate questions that should be asked.

You want it both ways---you accept Lyons was there because he admitted he was there (despite being mysteriously AWOL the whole week) but if I acknowledge the possibility that he was there you reject his account of the floorboards already being lifted as explainable by Paul Dodd's account of having done the prep work himself?

Do I have that right?

Why would you reject Dodd's clear account other than it is desirable for your theory?

It's hardly a twist or a turn. It's what Dodd told Harrison years before the electricians were interviewed for a second time.

[Iconoclast]

You want it both ways---you accept Lyons was there because he admitted he was there (despite being mysteriously AWOL the whole week) but if I acknowledge the possibility that he was there you reject his account of the floorboards already being lifted as explainable by Paul Dodd's account of having done the prep work himself?

I do not accept that Lyons was there at all. How could I know that? What I accept is that the 'double event' of the Battlecrease proposed provenance is a staggering coincidence if it had no part to play in the emergence of the Maybrick scrapbook. 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. I trust the people who claim it was said were correct, but I would like to double-check the context for myself to ensure that there was no ambiguity involved. 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.

I also accept that Tim Martin-Wright heard about the Maybrick scrapbook in 1991 or 1992 and not in 1993 when Paul Feldman was running around Liverpool broadcasting the theory which Martin-Wright backed-up in 1994. I have seen and heard Martin-Wright on video and I find him to be a very credible witness indeed. I'd call him a 'cultured Geordie', very different from the image I had previously built-up around him. He may well have erred badly by once being caught drinking and driving, but I don't believe that makes him a liar nor an unreliable witness.

I also accept that Brian Rawes had absolutely no reason to lie regarding his discussion with Eddie Lyons at the end of the driveway of Battlecrease House on July 17, 1992 - a discussion which implicates Lyons in the possible removal of an item that was not his during his brief time in Battlecrease House.

These are just a small sample of the things I find acceptable to believe are almost certainly true regarding the Battlecrease provenance.

Why would you reject Dodd's clear account other than it is desirable for your theory?

If Paul Dodd lifted the relevant floorboards in advance of the work being done on his house on march 9, 1992, then good on him. According to Chris Jones, it would take a significant amount of effort to release the hefty nails and lift the old boards, but I have no reason to doubt him if he said he did so. It doesn't particularly confirm his claim that nothing was to be found underneath any boards he lifted - I do not accept that someone lifting floorboards in preparation for someone else to work beneath them would necessarily have diligently checked what was potentially under any which remained secured down. I have no way of knowing either way how significant his prep work may have been so it is difficult to rule out the possibility that he did not see what may have been underneath the floorboards.

It's hardly a twist or a turn. It's what Dodd told Harrison years before the electricians were interviewed for a second time.

And it may well turn out to be the case that Dodd saw nothing because there was nothing there to be seen but none of us are ever going to know that now - even if someone, an elderly electrician, say, came out now and said he had found something, we will have no proof that he did. So Paul Dodd saying he didn't think anything could have been found under the floorboards is not a game-changing aspect of this tale in the way you may perhaps have been implying.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Ike -- check your inbox.

[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

[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.