Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Moving on, you now accept that Billy Graham lied to Feldman and Skinner, and they evidently accepted this lie, at least for a decade or so.
    To be clear, I suspect that either Anne alone or Anne and Feldman concocted the new version of the Tony D story, and therefore Feldman possibly knew when he met Billy that the latter was simply helping out the former. To be absolutely clear, there is no way on God's earth Keith Skinner would have gone along with this subterfuge had he known about it. I don't think that that has ever been claimed nor implied but - as I now know him (tangentially) - I want to be crystal clear that he would never dirty his hands in this way (or any other).

    It's a hard sell, Caz. I don’t envy your position. You evidently wish us to believe that Anne and Billy both lied in order to protect the man who had thrown a wrench into their lives and had proved an embarrassment and a potential legal liability.
    Not to protect Mike Barrett, no, but to protect the authenticity of the scrapbook which Anne believed in.

    I don't know why you need this extra level of explanation around Billy Graham's motivation for lying. If - as you obviously do - you believe that Barrett created the scrapbook from scratch, then you definitively believe that Billy Graham lied. Why he lied should be of little consequence to us if we are to believe your version of events. We simply know that he did. So he lied in your version of events and he lied in mine. I can explain my version of his lie. It's up to you to explain yours.

    Ike

    Iconoclast

    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      I've been wondering about this, because RJ claimed on more than one occasion recently that Eddie worked on Dodd's house in June 1992.

      The wonderful irony here is the fact that Eddie's name does not appear on the Battlecrease 'timecard' for June. [It's actually called a DAYWORK A/c, for invoicing the customer.] So while he may have been sent there by the boss to help out, as both confirmed was the case in March, nobody to my knowledge has ever suggested Eddie worked there at all in the June, so it's a mystery where RJ got the idea that he did, and why he would have believed it, when there is no DAYWORK A/c to show that he was there.

      And RJ was so emphatic about it too!

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      To RJ (not to Caz - just couldn't find the RJ quotation Caz had cited),

      All that is ever going to matter here is whether work was done in Battlecrease House on Mar 9, 1992 (and, ideally, involved the lifting of floorboards) by Eddie Lyons or by people who knew Eddie Lyons. That's all we need to establish, and that has been established.

      That is the clear, logical, plausible link to the Mike Barrett who ON THE VERY SAME DAY tentatively (he used a false name) rang Doreen Montgomery to gauge likely interest in what Eddie had told him about that lunchtime in The Saddle.

      Yes, it is true that we can only place Lyons at BH on Mar 9, 1992 via his own admission (not bad!) and his boss's admission that workers would be sent out on unbilled jaunts if they had no other work to do (also not bad!). So we can place him there anecdotally (which is very interesting) but we can't place him there categorically. No biggee. The staggering 'coincidence' which happened on Mar 9, 1992 requires only a clear, logical, plausible link between the two events to be quickly unmasked for what it was - a non-coincidence.

      That link has a name and it seems for all the world that that name is Edward Lyons.

      Ike
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

        [SIZE=14px][FONT=Georgia]Nope. I was not being emphatic. The exact opposite. I find the Battlecrease provenance so ridiculous that I simply didn’t bother to go back and check whether Eddy Lyons was at Dodd’s house in June or July, because it didn't really matter. I knew it was one or the other, which is why in my earlier post I simply wrote “later that summer.”

        The point being that the documentation doesn't show him there on 9 March.
        The point being that he doesn't have to be (even though he has said on film that he was there that day). He only needs to have known the crew and - as he was one of them - I'd say he unequivocally knew the crew, wouldn't you?

        What my lapse demonstrates is that memories cannot be trusted. You have proved my point admirably, Caz, so thanks for that. I read Smith’s account and David Barrat’s response to it a year or two ago, and already couldn’t remember whether Eddy was there in June or July.
        It doesn't matter whether he was there in June or July 1992, nor whether he was there on Mar 9, 1992. He only needed to know the crew who were there that day, and he clearly did. Rhodes' office (as I recall) wasn't far from Battlecrease House so I have no problem conceiving of Eddie being sent down there to help the crew, nor of him popping along to see them. Or of the crew bringing something in brown paper back to the office to be discretely discussed among the wider crew.

        Yet we are supposed to trust --some twenty+ years after the fact—a vague memory of Eddy possibly being at Dodd’s house on 9 March 1992, when the contemporary documentation shows that it was actually later that summer?
        You can trust or distrust whatever you like, Roger - your 'exasperation' is a mere front to influence the incautious or easily-led reader. Thankfully, said reader has me to put the world to rights (as ever).

        Good luck with that.
        How does one properly respond to the offer of irrelevant (and barely-felt) good wishes?

        Ike
        Iconoclast

        Comment


        • Okay, solved the case at last.

          What on earth wil I do now?

          Ike
          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
            Okay, solved the case at last.

            What on earth wil I do now?

            Ike
            Ike,

            Can you come and write my autobiography, please? I won't say anything to anyone.....

            Graham
            We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Graham View Post

              Ike,

              Can you come and write my autobiography, please? I won't say anything to anyone.....

              Graham
              Dear Graham,

              Assuming that you are a world-famous, unmasked homicidal maniac, I'm definitely your man.

              PS Either way, we won't mention the outcome of tonight's Big Game at the Cathedral on the Hill …

              Ike
              CACK
              Cheap And Cheerful Killer-Unmasking
              Iconoclast

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                You also seem to be getting into a muddle over how the Saddle came into this. One of the electricians told Feldman that Eddie drank at the Saddle and lived round the corner. I don't remember this admission you say Eddie made to Colin Rhodes in 1993.
                I'm not returning to discuss the diary, but just to point out that perhaps our resident expert Caz is the one "in a muddle."

                The source for Colin Rhodes asking his employees about the Saddle is Maurice Chittenden, the reporter for the Sunday Times, who flew to Liverpool and quizzed Rhodes, among others. He reports the following in his book Exclusive: The Last Days of Fleet Street. I knew I had read this; so, no I did not mean Feldman, who appears to have been late to the dinner party. Inexplicably, Chittenden states two employees drank at the Saddle, at not one, so maybe Feldman's information was even bogus on this point, but I'll leave that to the "experts" to decide.

                So the nest of Battlecrease thieves appears to be expanding. Now we have two electricians along with Billy Graham, Anne, and Mike. And all the while, the late Mr. Devereux's daughter already has Mike's copy of Liverpool Tales in her possession--yet another fly in the provenance soup, along with an entire swarm of other improbables.

                Have fun with it!


                Click image for larger version

Name:	Chittenden.JPG
Views:	112
Size:	35.3 KB
ID:	736590

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                  Yes, it is true that we can only place Lyons at BH on Mar 9, 1992 via his own admission (not bad!) and his boss's admission that workers would be sent out on unbilled jaunts if they had no other work to do (also not bad!). So we can place him there anecdotally (which is very interesting) but we can't place him there categorically. No biggee. The staggering 'coincidence' which happened on Mar 9, 1992 requires only a clear, logical, plausible link between the two events to be quickly unmasked for what it was - a non-coincidence.

                  That link has a name and it seems for all the world that that name is Edward Lyons.

                  Ike
                  Afternoon Ike,

                  It's actually quite a bit more than that. Other electricians, who knew about something being taken, have consistently named Eddie as the one who took it back to Anfield. From Eddie's own recollections of the work he did in the house, and where in the house, and who was there with him, and how long the job was, it is clear that he is remembering details from one day, and one day only - Monday 9th March 1992. Everything corresponds with that day. He probably also remembers the 4 days in July he worked in the house, but he wasn't describing the work he did that week on the ground floor with Graham Rhodes. The details of that job were quite different.

                  RJ stopped really reading my posts a couple of months back [either that or he is in serious denial], because he keeps repeating the same irrelevant arguments - the latest one being that people remember events from 20+ years ago but not the dates they happened, which is precisely the point here. There is independent confirmation and documentation showing that Eddie was remembering what he was doing in Battecrease in March 1992, so there was no need for him to even try and cast his mind back and attempt to put a week, a month, or even a year on the occasion he was recalling.

                  I was reminded of the three Rod Stewart concerts I went to many years ago, one in Brighton, two in Wembley. The second one in Wembley was rather special and I remember what happened afterwards as if it were yesterday. Emerging from the concert, my friend and I fancied a drink before heading off to the tube, so we walked to the Hilton and ordered from the bar. We were the only two there. The barman told us that Rod and Rachel Hunter were in residence and were about to emerge from a private part of the restaurant. He said to hang around and Rod would autograph our concert tickets. Sure enough, the happy couple came out and Rod kindly obliged. I thanked him with a peck on the cheek. I still have the ticket, so I could check the exact date, but it's tucked away somewhere upstairs with a lot of other stuff I will need time to sort through. I guessed the year might have been 1991 or 1992, but I was wrong. I know now it was in fact the second half of 1990. How do I know? Simples. I looked up when Rachel and Rod met and when they got married. I remember congratulating the pair on their recent engagement and Rachel flashed me a lovely white smile.

                  Nobody fitted me up, and nobody was putting dates in my mouth, intentionally or otherwise. I simply remember it because I was there.

                  I very nearly lost that ticket. When I got home, I realised I must have dropped it in the taxi from East Croydon station. I called the taxi firm, and one of the drivers found it and popped it round the next morning.

                  And this is another post for RJ to ignore.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  Last edited by caz; 06-24-2020, 11:21 AM.
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    I'm not returning to discuss the diary, but just to point out that perhaps our resident expert Caz is the one "in a muddle."

                    The source for Colin Rhodes asking his employees about the Saddle is Maurice Chittenden, the reporter for the Sunday Times, who flew to Liverpool and quizzed Rhodes, among others. He reports the following in his book Exclusive: The Last Days of Fleet Street. I knew I had read this; so, no I did not mean Feldman, who appears to have been late to the dinner party. Inexplicably, Chittenden states two employees drank at the Saddle, at not one, so maybe Feldman's information was even bogus on this point, but I'll leave that to the "experts" to decide.

                    So the nest of Battlecrease thieves appears to be expanding. Now we have two electricians along with Billy Graham, Anne, and Mike. And all the while, the late Mr. Devereux's daughter already has Mike's copy of Liverpool Tales in her possession--yet another fly in the provenance soup, along with an entire swarm of other improbables.

                    Have fun with it!


                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Chittenden.JPG
Views:	112
Size:	35.3 KB
ID:	736590
                    Well done, RJ. Score a point.

                    You do realise what this means, don't you?

                    That two of the Battlecrease electricians - and Bongo Barrett - all took refreshment in the Saddle.

                    Not really much point in Eddie ever denying it then, was there?

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                      I'm not returning to discuss the diary, but just to point out that perhaps our resident expert Caz is the one "in a muddle."

                      The source for Colin Rhodes asking his employees about the Saddle is Maurice Chittenden, the reporter for the Sunday Times, who flew to Liverpool and quizzed Rhodes, among others. He reports the following in his book Exclusive: The Last Days of Fleet Street. I knew I had read this; so, no I did not mean Feldman, who appears to have been late to the dinner party. Inexplicably, Chittenden states two employees drank at the Saddle, at not one, so maybe Feldman's information was even bogus on this point, but I'll leave that to the "experts" to decide.

                      So the nest of Battlecrease thieves appears to be expanding. Now we have two electricians along with Billy Graham, Anne, and Mike. And all the while, the late Mr. Devereux's daughter already has Mike's copy of Liverpool Tales in her possession--yet another fly in the provenance soup, along with an entire swarm of other improbables.

                      Have fun with it!


                      Click image for larger version  Name:	Chittenden.JPG Views:	0 Size:	35.3 KB ID:	736590
                      Hi Roger,

                      I think you are a man who can sense a hiding when he's on one. All that you have done is suggest that there were two of the Battlecrease House crew who could have provided the critical link between the House and Michael Barrett on Mar 9, 1992, not the one which had been commonly-believed.

                      I can tell you know you're on a hiding because you have resorted to the It's-All-Too-Big-A-Conspiracy-Not-To-Be-A-Conspiracy theory. So, almost in real time ...
                      • One or more of the Rhodes crew have a drink in The Saddle on Mar 9, 1992 and tell Barrett about their discovery of a diary in the name of Jack the Ripper [no conspiracy here yet, Roger]
                      • Mike Barrett brings the diary to the attention of the world, but he knows it's probably not safe to reveal where he got it so he invents his Tony D cover story [so still no conspiracy, only a lie]
                      • Mike boils his heed in a pot of whisky so Anne steps in to protect the diary which she believes to be kosher by claiming Tony D got it from her [still no conspiracy, only an expanded version of Mike's lie]
                      • Anne (or possibly Anne and Feldman) need Billy to fool Keith Skinner (or Paul Feldman and Keith Skinner) so she asks her old dad to go along with the lie [I guess you could start to call this a conspiracy, but it was hardly a wide-spread one]
                      And that - as far as I can tell - is the platform from which the truly desperate have attempted to build a conspiracy-forgery argument from (and failed miserably).

                      And all the while, the late Mr. Devereux's daughter already has Mike's (alleged) copy of Liverpool Tales in her possession. Wow - that totally blows the case against the Rhodes crew completely out of the water!

                      You see 'improbables' where none lie, and yet are blind to what are truly the most amazing set of improbables if James Maybrick were not Jack the Ripper.

                      Ike
                      Last edited by Iconoclast; 06-24-2020, 11:32 AM.
                      Iconoclast

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                        Lock up on the way out Ike...
                        What Ikey mate, mate, is out on day release?

                        Disgusting, I've been here just as long and all I'm allowed is an unaccompanied walk in the rose garden

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Observer View Post

                          What Ikey mate, mate, is out on day release?

                          Disgusting, I've been here just as long and all I'm allowed is an unaccompanied walk in the rose garden
                          Okay, not bad. Not bad at all. A few more of these and I might start liking you.

                          And I don't say that about Maccums too readily ...
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • And I can tell you since the Chief escaped it's been no fun in here. Nurse Ratchet still dishing out the Maybrick / old hoax liquid cosh.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                              Okay, not bad. Not bad at all. A few more of these and I might start liking you.

                              And I don't say that about Maccums too readily ...
                              Unlikely to be too many more Ikey you've solved the case. But tell me where do you get your straight jacket cleaned, mine's getting a bit ripe, the last lot made a right pigs ear of the job.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                                Dear Graham,

                                Assuming that you are a world-famous, unmasked homicidal maniac, I'm definitely your man.

                                PS Either way, we won't mention the outcome of tonight's Big Game at the Cathedral on the Hill …

                                Ike
                                CACK
                                Cheap And Cheerful Killer-Unmasking
                                Ike,

                                sadly, no. I'm merely a simple yet dedicated wringer-out for a one-armed window-cleaner....but you should see the sights I see.....

                                Graham

                                We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X