Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m genuinely baffled Scott, as I suspect are others who might be reading this. Which of the words in "the diary gets defended by a minority" don't you understand and need me to explain to you? What point are you trying to make?

[Scott Nelson]

Don't get coy with me. You know what I'm asking. Anyone in general, not just you, what is the definition of a diary defender?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don't get coy with me. You know what I'm asking. Anyone in general, not just you, what is the definition of a diary defender?

It's not an expression I've ever used myself in that form, Scott, but do you think it might refer to those who regularly, routinely and consistently defend the diary from attacks on its authenticity; who challenge every single anachronistic expression in the diary (claiming that someone in the 19th century could easily have written "one off instance", "bumbling buffoon", "top myself" and "spreads mayhem"), every single factual mistake (the diarist mistaking Florence's godmother for her aunt, the breasts in the wrong place, the non-existent key and the poste house) and who challenge the conclusions of experienced document examiners (Baxendale and the Rendell team) that the diary is a modern fake? Might that be it? All seems pretty self-explanatory to me considering that the words "diary" and "defender" are easy to look up in a dictionary. But do you really think it's a good idea to personalize this debate with labels? Wouldn't it be best, considering Admin's recent warning, to stick with discussing issues relating to the diary rather than the people who post about it?

[caz]

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'd hardly call it 'convenient' for Eddie, considering that he freely gave enough detail to put himself 'with certainty' at Dodd's house on the one and only occasion that allows for the Battlecrease provenance to remain unshaken by all Barrett hoax theories.

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

How many more ways can I put this? Eddie was describing what we know happened on 9th March, but he didn't describe what we know happened later that summer, when his name was actually attached to a specific job. For all Eddie knew, when speaking in 2018, Colin Rhodes could have kept a dated record of each time he sent an employee out on a job, with no exceptions.

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.

But no dates were even suggested to Eddie in 2018. He'd only have been able to narrow it down to between the end of 1991 and late July 1992, while employed by Portus & Rhodes. What was the 'full context' that Eddie needed to understand, when asked in the drive of Dodd's house what he could remember about having worked there more than a quarter of a century before? He admitted to being at the house to help out on a job that dates itself to March 1992. The details he gave correspond to that job and no other. He hardly recalled the job that dates itself to July 1992, when we already knew he was there. Floorboards and skips are not required to confuse the issue in this context.

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.

Similar confusion? What 'confusion' do we see with Eddie recalling details that can only be applied to March 1992?

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.

Probably wise.