One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

If there's one document anywhere, anytime, that anyone makes damn sure their name is on, dated and timed, it's a timesheet.

[Iconoclast]

why bring it up, why should anyone regard it at all, is there any evidence of an association? It’s just another smokescreen meant to befuddle and confuse.

Kattrup,

Can I politely remind you that there are a very very VERY small number of people in the world who are loud and proud about their belief that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper?

Caz is not one of them and never has been (to my knowledge). Why would Caz wish to throw up "another smokescreen meant to befuddle and confuse"? I can only infer from that that you are implying that her arguments come from her membership of some secret society of Maybrickites? If you are, then you should think again.

I think posters to the Casebook can reasonably attack - off the top of my head - Spider, Erobitha, and me (obviously me with the volume button turned up to 11 given my long defence of the scrapbook's authenticity) for our beliefs about Maybrick. Out in the 'real' world (where many of us Casebookers really should have been long before lockdown allowed us to merge into the collective sadness of our four walls for most of every day and feel 'normal' briefly), there are others who are nailed-on Maybrickites. The obvious example is Robert Smith, and possibly Shirley Harrison. Paul Feldman is no longer with us but I'll give him an honorary mention. But I don't see why you or anyone else should get away with inferring someone's beliefs in order to make an argument (often little better than a facile argument at that!) here on the Casebook or indeed anywhere else.

Just because someone presents an argument which may tangentially or directly support the case for James Maybrick having written the Victorian scrapbook, it does not mean that they are wedded to that conclusion. It just means that they are being intellectually honest about what the evidence might be telling us. They are open to the possibility that the evidence might from time to time favour Maybrick rather than detract from Maybrick. In the same way, in my frankly rather brilliant Society's Pillar, I acknowledge that the reverse is true and that there are grounds for arguing that the scrapbook was not written by James Maybrick (and, by implication, that he was not Jack). It is this intellectual honesty which detractors from Maybrick are rarely able to dig into and which - as a consequence - leave their arguments dripping in foul-smelling bias, like they'd dragged their laptops through a sewer before posting.

To you, and to your ilk, I say feel free to attack my beliefs because my beliefs are quite clearly well-established and do not concur with yours or most others - but you should show a little more caution before building your arguments from a self-imposed set of assumptions about someone's beliefs and objectives. If Caz does not openly attack my beliefs, it may well be because she respects my right to hold them. I have no doubt that if she found me wanting in my argument, she'd come looking for my testicles with her famous illicit switchblade, but the fact that our posts are largely harmonious suggests to me that we have long-since implicitly agreed to disagree on the core of the issue but not on the facts (as they appear from time to time).

I put it to you that you should do the same.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Oh is that the unsourced reference to some latterday interview where Lyons states something unknown which Smith interprets as a confession? If we're to take Lyons' unknown statement that it's possible he was present on that day, despite the timesheets showing he wasn't, as gospel, should we not also accept his known statements that he never found the diary and that he did not know MB? Surely you do not consider him a liar only when it suits you?

But you're right, I know very little about the case. It is not very interesting, I only follow it for the amusement value.

It is such a shame that your amusement is sourced in such an unpleasant tone.

[Iconoclast]

Okay, time for some perspective for those who can't be arsed to check anything for themselves ...

[Iconoclast]

If there's one document anywhere, anytime, that anyone makes damn sure their name is on, dated and timed, it's a timesheet.

And that'll be a fact, Abe?

[Iconoclast]

On March 9, 1992, Mike Barrett lived some 13 minutes walk away from Eddie Lyons, erstwhile sparky at Battlecrease House.

[Iconoclast]

On March 9, 1992, work was being conducted on Battlecrease House. Eddie Lyons admits that he was there that day (and the timesheets for the Skelmersdale job which Lyons had ostensibly been employed for show that he wasn't working there that day sufficiently to be recorded as being there so there are grounds to accept Lyons' statement, which is supported by Rhodes statement that workers were often sent out to jobs 'casually' and were not recorded on the timesheets, despite Abe's claims, above).

Now, Barret and Lyons live 13 minutes walk away from each other. But does that mean that Battlecrease House was dead handy - maybe just 'round the corner? Well, no. Battlecrease House was a 20-minute drive for Eddie Lyons.

[Iconoclast]

But does that mean that Eddie's journey had to start (or end) at Fountains Road (so close to The Saddle and the allure of Mike Barrett's literary tales over a few pints)? Obviously not. So - for sake of arguments - if Eddie's journey could have been the same distance - north, south, east, or west - where else could he have lived in Merseyside? Turns out that he could have lived in all manner of manors!

[Iconoclast]

But his journey is 20-minutes because he lives in a highly-urbanised part of Liverpool - right next to Stanley Park and the two famous old football grounds. Clearly he'd get further if he drove for about 20 minutes in more 'rural' parts of the county? If so, where could he have got to in about 20 minutes (driving)? Turns out he could have got to St Helens in about 26 minutes.

[Iconoclast]

And - if we allow that he might be willing to travel anything up to 40 minutes drive from his home - he could have lived as far away as Leigh!

[Iconoclast]

But he didn't.

He didn't live in the 'far-flung' towns of Warrington or Chester or St Helens or Leigh.

He lived in Liverpool.

And not just any old part of Liverpool. He lived right next to the very pub that Bongo Barrett frequented before he picked up his daughter Caroline from school.

Now, if any of you who are reading this stuff (and I imagine there's a few of you) are thinking "So what?", can I politely ask that you give yourselves a jolly good shake, please?

Let's rephrase this. If your child's life depended upon Eddie Lyons drinking in the same pub as Bongo Barrett, and you knew how far away from The Saddle Battlecrease House was, and you had no idea where Eddie Lyons lived (so all you know is that that distance is about a 20-minute drive, Bongo drank in The Saddle and Eddie possibly worked in Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992), would you be perfectly happy to say "Yes, of course it was inevitable that these two men would frequent the same pub so I have no fear for my child's life".

Personally, I'd run my child a million miles away from dreadful odds like that. But, then, I don't have to live with the consequences of admitting how utterly implausible it is that Eddie Lyons and Mike Barrett lived so close to one another and even drank in the same pub, do I?

Ike

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

And that'll be a fact, Abe?

Hi Ike,

No more, no less than lots of things to be fair. Eddie, The Saddle, Mike and 9th March definitely tie in. And I'd agree that's it's no coincidence that Battlecrease has work carried out the same day Mike phones Doreen. If Eddie's name was on a timesheet, it's be indisputable, he was there. Sadly, as is oft the situation in all things Ripper, what we're left with is reasonable assumptions. So equally, his timesheet doesn't pin him down, but likewise, he did work for the guys who were doing the job, so maybe he was?
I guess what I'm getting at is that like everyone else involved, Eddie Lyons is less than 100% in the witness quality department. But I reckon he definitely factors in somewhere, even if it's not producing a diary from beneath the floorboards. How close were he and Deveraux? Pursuing the hoax angle, Deveraux was closely involved with Barrett, lived right next to and drank in the same pub as Lyons, so it's not inconceivable that Lyons and Barrett were more familiar than Lyons let on.

Of course, if the diaries genuine, it all ties up nicely. As I've said before, if Barrett wrote that diary, he was one flukey bar steward.

[Kattrup]

If Caz does not openly attack my beliefs, it may well be because she respects my right to hold them. I have no doubt that if she found me wanting in my argument, she'd come looking for my testicles with her famous illicit switchblade, but the fact that our posts are largely harmonious suggests to me that we have long-since implicitly agreed to disagree on the core of the issue but not on the facts (as they appear from time to time).

I put it to you that you should do the same.

Ike

Hi Iconoclast

I did not insinuate that caz was a maybrickite, but since there’s no evidence that the diary came Battlecrease, why bring it up? Answer: because caz will support any argument that prolongs the discussion about the diary.

Same reason she’s not criticizing you. Any arguments that turn attention away from the obvious and only conclusion will have caz’s support. Having these various fallback positions allows her and other diary defenders to keep the pot stirring.

As for the maps I don’t understand what they’re supposed to show.

Again, Lyons stated he did not find the diary and he did not know MB.

There’s no reason to assume the diary came from Battlecrease and every reason to assume it came from the Barretts. Occam’s razor, remember?

[Iconoclast]

Here's another way of looking at this. In 1992, the population of Merseyside was 1.4 million people. That's

1,433,000 people.

Your child dies instantly if Eddie Lyons and Mike Barrett do not frequent The Saddle. Mike Barrett is one person in 1.4 million. It could have been Jim Smith from St Helens. Or Sally Jones from beautiful Leigh. Or Inspector Charles Fotherington-Belcher from Chester. Or any of the other 1.4 million people (excluding Bongo himself, of course). But it's none of them, it's Mike Barrett and it's The Saddle.

So the guy who contacts Doreen Montgomery on March 9, 1992, the very day work is being carried out on Battlecrease House by a team of which Eddie Lyons can be counted, has to frequent the same pub as Lyons or else your child dies instantly.

Do you take those odds quite happily because - clearly - that sort of thing just happens all of the time, or do you immediately and frantically beg to borrow Eddie's Trabant, shove your child in the back, and chug as far away from this dreadful scenario as you possibly can?

Personally, I'd only stop to fill up and take a piss until such time as the Moon was confirmed to be made of cheese.

But maybe I just don't understand probability theory well enough?

PS If anyone dares to reply "Yes, but …" I swear I'll set Caz on them.

[Iconoclast]

As for the maps I don’t understand what they’re supposed to show.

I give up!

Do you have any knowledge whatsoever about probability theory?

You cannot cite Occam's razor in order to argue that the incredible coincidence of Barrett and Lyons frequenting The Saddle should be excluded from the argument!

All you are doing is citing something you think you understand (Occam's razor) in order to explain away something you clearly have no grasp of (probability theory).

No, seriously - that is what you are doing.

And your assertions and assumptions about Caz's reasons for posting are seriously starting to make my blood boil.