One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

The logic in these parts has grown too crazy for me.

Well, RJ, can I suggest you just twist the storyline a few times so that it potentially sounds a bit crazy?

We are told that that Eddie Lyons living on Fountains Road in 1992 is startling evidence of his connection to the Maybrick Hoax because Tony Devereux also lived on Fountains Road. That this is a coincidence too big to ignore.

Oh dear, failed at the first hurdle. The 'big coincidence' is obviously Eddie Lyons working on the floorboards on the morning of March 9, 1992, and Mike Barrett contacting Rupert Crew in - presumably - the afternoon.

But this comes from the same people who believe that Devereux has no actual connection to the diary, so how does this ‘coincidence’ make sense? How exactly?

This only 'doesn't make sense', RJ, because you are desperately trying to fudge and confuse the issue.

My understanding of Caz's point (I could be wrong, but if I am, I'll let it be my point instead) is that Eddie may well have told Mike that he himself had got the diary from Tony (who was now brown bread), hence Eddie convinced Mike that that was the line Mike must stick to if he wanted the diary because Eddie didn't want his (Eddie's) name mentioned in connection with the diary which he of course knew to be half-inched. Mike didn't know Eddie had been grafting at 7 Riversdale Road that morning so he either bought the story and therefore the diary or else he went along with what may have sounded like an all-too-convenient story and bought the diary. "Whatever you say, Eddie, just sell me the ****ing diary, Wac". Subsequently, the only story in town from Mike's perspective was that he got it from Tony.

Think about it. The man who has no connection to the diary is the 'connective tissue' that makes the Battlecrease provenance true. This is incomprehensible.

I don't think that was Caz's argument, but again I could be wrong.

For obvious reasons, it is common for forgers and hoaxers to use the ‘dead guy’ provenance. “Dead men tell no tales,” is how Mike Barrett put it.

And - I imagine - those suspecting that they are being fenced stolen goods.

Is Caz honestly suggesting that having bought the diary from Eddie Lyons, who lived on Fountains Road, Mike then had to come up with someone else who lived on Fountains Road as his bogus provenance? It’s an absurdity. If anything, Mike would want to distance himself from Fountains Road as much as possible, if Eddie had been the ‘fence.’

How many dead men was Mike supposed to know, RJ? The one he knew lived on Fountains Road but I don't think that needs to be an imperative here.

But this is not what Caz is suggesting—I hope!—because, remember, in her version of events, Tony Devereux, who had died in 1991, had no actual connection to the diary.

In this scenario, Tony D would indeed have had no connection to the diary.

Thus, even in the framework of their own theory, Devereux living on Fountains Road WAS a coincidence. It couldn’t be otherwise.

I don't think Fountains Road was important. If Mike had had another acquaintance who had recently passed on to the great bakery in the sky, there's every reason to think he would have cited him or her as his source for the diary. Regardless of where they lived. The fact that Tony lived on Fountains Road made him nailed-on in this scenario to be the unprovable provenance, I'd say. As I said above, I don't think Fountains Road was the 'big coincidence' here (it was The Saddle on Fountains Road that ended up being that).

But I suppose by now it is evident that the old hoax theory is for those who don’t mind twisting simple logic into pretzel shapes.

This is where you lose your audience, RJ. You haven't made your argument, but now you're gloating about it as if you have.

In short, this Fountains Road double event makes no sense whatsoever, unless one is easily fooled by rhetoric.

I think you think that you have fooled your audience with your unnecessarily obfuscating rhetoric, RJ. In truth, you haven't. You have simply typed a lot of words, not necessarily in the right order to form an argument.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

My understanding of Caz's point (I could be wrong, but if I am, I'll let it be my point instead) is that Eddie may well have told Mike that he himself had got the diary from Tony (who was now brown bread), hence Eddie convinced Mike that that was the line Mike must stick to if he wanted the diary because Eddie didn't want his (Eddie's) name mentioned in connection with the diary which he of course knew to be half-inched.

Jesus. Where to begin? If her point was so lucid why are you now admitting you might not have understood it, and feel the need to revise it?

Further, you should consider writing a novel, Ike, because you're certainly not adverse to making up things as you go.

You're now back to Eddy knowing Tony Devereux, which would mean as far back as the Summer of 1991? Did, Eddie, too, discuss Tales of Liverpool with Mike and Tony?

(I'm not entirely certain that Caz and Keith will like your new suggestion, but who knows at this point?)

And no, Ike, I am not misquoting, nor misreporting Caz's crazy logic, but I can readily understand your impulse to distance yourself from it and try to revise it on the 'fly.'

Caz admits in Post #6801 that Tony living on Fountains Road is nothing more than a 'coincidence,' but then somehow thinks herself into prison, incomprehensibly concluding that this 'coincidence' somehow is a genuine link between Eddie Lyons and the Diary:

Bingo for Bongo. He now had a new, but only very slightly improved provenance, which began with a basic truth he could stick with, that he got the diary from a Fountains Road resident - just not a living one. A convenient coincidence¹ here was that Mike had befriended Tony, who had died the previous summer and couldn't be questioned about the diary, and he could weave a tale using his genuine memories of this man and his home on Fountains Road. It's what liars do best. But they still need a good memory.

If Tony's address is a coincidence (and Caz admits that it is) the only way it 'works' as a link is if Barrett had some insane impulse to randomly chose someone living on Fountians Road as his provenance. But we know that is not true---he chose a recently deceased friend—his only friend, we have been told.

Maybe y’all should take a break, because your minds are starting to overheat. You are so desperate to find a link between Eddy and the diary that you are thinking yourself into knots.

If you want to indulge yourself by believing Eddie Lyons living near Barrett is miraculous, be my guest, but Fountains Road IS a coincidence...even by her own admission.

So why turn around and write crap like this?:

Yeah, I notice you missed out the very real, very inconvenient Fountains Rd twosome - Eddie and Tony, the diary's very own chicken and egg - in your own desperate attempt to pretend they are not a problem for the Awesome Auction Fan Club.

I can be 100% certain that you don't like where Fountains Rd is leading.

Agreed. I don’t like where Fountains Rd is leading.

It is muddy thinking of the worst type.

And yet, Ike, you never fail to amuse:

I don't think Fountains Road was important. If Mike had had another acquaintance who had recently passed on to the great bakery in the sky, there's every reason to think he would have cited him or her as his source for the diary.

Thank you, Ike! That is EXACTLY my point! And that is precisely why Fountains Road IS a coincidence, and Caz shouldn't try to make it into something it isn't.

You both agree to my point and then chastise me for having said it!

That's nuts, old boy. Totally nuts.

But have a good weekend anyway.

[¹Emphasis added]

[rjpalmer]

Eddie Lyons working on the floorboards on the morning of March 9, 1992, and Mike Barrett contacting Rupert Crew in - presumably - the afternoon.

This is the big lie. Repeat it a thousand times and it won't be any less of one, Ike.

The timecards show that Eddie Lyons DID work at Battlecrease....in June 1992.

Two months after Barrett had already brought the diary to London. The Rigby incident dated to an even later time.

The chronology simply did not work, which is why Feldman and Harrison rejected this theory 25+ years ago.

When Feldman started interviewing these people they already knew he was a big-shot London video maker and one of them (whom he doesn't identify) tried to earn a quick buck by stating his willingness to claim that he had found something at Battlecrease.

But Feldy smelled a rat and quite rightly dismissed it.

[rjpalmer]

This bears repeating:

I don't think Fountains Road was important.

Fabulous. Now just convince Caz of that point.

[rjpalmer]

Didn't Devereux have a copy of Whittington-Egan's Liverpool Soundings published in the late 1960s? The Diarist described the 1889 Grand National horse race as the fastest ever, which could have been inferred from this book?

By the way, I think this is a mistake that crept in to the message boards a couple of years ago.

Liverpool Soundings does not mention the Grand National times.

[Iconoclast]

This is the big lie. Repeat it a thousand times and it won't be any less of one, Ike.

The timecards show that Eddie Lyons DID work at Battlecrease....in June 1992.

Is Eddie Lyons not on the record as admitting that he was at Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992 (arriving around 10am when work had already started)?

[rjpalmer]

Is Eddie Lyons not on the record as admitting that he was at Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992 (arriving around 10am when work had already started)?

You tell me, Ike. Have you seen the tape? Is it a video confession, or what?

You claim he admitted it; others claim he denied it; still others voice their confidence that he will 'eventually confess.'

Then we have another tape of Anne Graham claiming to have seen the diary in the 1970s and had hid it behind a cupboard in Goldie Street.

[Iconoclast]

You tell me, Ike. Have you seen the tape? Is it a video confession, or what?

You claim he admitted it; others claim he denied it; still others voice their confidence that he will 'eventually confess.'

Then we have another tape of Anne Graham claiming to have seen the diary in the 1970s and had hid it behind a cupboard in Goldie Street.

I'm sure I had read somewhere that Lyons had admitted to being at Battlecrease that fateful morning. I am absolutely certain that he has denied any involvement in the diary, but I guess that would be likely whether he was guilty or innocent so that doesn't really help us understand the truth of the matter.

I don't know if there is a tape of Anne saying she saw the diary in the 1970s, but she obviously went on the record as saying she saw it in 1968 or 1969 so the next decade too would not be particularly amazing if she had already seen it. She certainly claimed to have wedged it behind a dresser in young Caroline's room in Goldie Street to which Mike had hilariously said that - if she had - he would have noticed as he did all the housework.

I don't think ...

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

This only 'doesn't make sense', RJ, because you are desperately trying to fudge and confuse the issue.

My understanding of Caz's point (I could be wrong, but if I am, I'll let it be my point instead) is that Eddie may well have told Mike that he himself had got the diary from Tony (who was now brown bread), hence Eddie convinced Mike that that was the line Mike must stick to if he wanted the diary because Eddie didn't want his (Eddie's) name mentioned in connection with the diary which he of course knew to be half-inched. Mike didn't know Eddie had been grafting at 7 Riversdale Road that morning so he either bought the story and therefore the diary or else he went along with what may have sounded like an all-too-convenient story and bought the diary. "Whatever you say, Eddie, just sell me the ****ing diary, Wac". Subsequently, the only story in town from Mike's perspective was that he got it from Tony.




Ike

Hi Ike,

So in this theoretical scenario, Eddie creates the Deveraux provenance. What a lucky coincidence, Mike was awfully pally with Tony before his death, so he's perfect fodder for the plan. Or, perhaps Eddie chose Tony because he knew Mike was friends with him? The problem with this 'Eddie creating the Deveraux provenance' thing is that it opens the door to there being an existing relationship between Eddie, Mike and Tony. And if we entertain that Mike and Eddie knew each other, then the floorboard miracle day gets a whole lot less coincidental. Or, it's just luck that Eddie chose Tony as a false provenance.

To be honest, I'd abandon the whole 'Eddie told Mike to claim the diary came from Tony' line, it really suggests that all three were known to each other prior to the opening of the Battlecrease Biscuits.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

So in this theoretical scenario, Eddie creates the Deveraux provenance. What a lucky coincidence, Mike was awfully pally with Tony before his death, so he's perfect fodder for the plan. Or, perhaps Eddie chose Tony because he knew Mike was friends with him? The problem with this 'Eddie creating the Deveraux provenance' thing is that it opens the door to there being an existing relationship between Eddie, Mike and Tony. And if we entertain that Mike and Eddie knew each other, then the floorboard miracle day gets a whole lot less coincidental. Or, it's just luck that Eddie chose Tony as a false provenance.

To be honest, I'd abandon the whole 'Eddie told Mike to claim the diary came from Tony' line, it really suggests that all three were known to each other prior to the opening of the Battlecrease Biscuits.

Hi Abe,

I'm sure I'll take your advice and park the notion, not necessarily because it isn't plausible but more because I was only doing what my dear American readers call 'spitballing' (you may have heard of it?).

The difficulty with balling the spit on this part of the Casebook, of course, is that you will inevitably be taken literally either immediately or indeed much later when the context of the original thought is long lost. So, at some point, maybe seven years down the line, some anal retentive will trawl through your posts far enough back until they find something vaguely contradictory to some other spit you've just recently balled and shout 'Fake!' in their loudest Times New Roman font.

Et cetera.

It is, of course, as I'm sure you were yourself thinking, far more likely that Mike had been warned-off citing Eddie for his provenance story and therefore far more likely that Mike would have sat in 12 Goldie Street on the evening of March 9, 1992 thinking "Right, if I can persuade Fast Eddie in The Saddle to fence me the dodgy dossier, but I'm not to mention his name, I'll need some other story for how I got my mitts on what could be a blockbuster. Hmmm. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmm. Wait a minute - It's been staring me in the ****ing face! I'll say I got it from the drummer of the Stone Roses!".

Later, when Mike realised that David Baddiel was planning to do that gag far better than he could in a few years time, he'd have further mused, "Okay, the drummer of the Stone Roses is out. How about someone I actually know who is somewhat more brown bread now than when I knew them? Who do I know who has recently gone up to the great bakery in the sky? Hmmm. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmm. Wait a minute - It's been staring me in the ****ing face! I'll say I got it from that local bloke who pegged it not that long ago. Used to have a pint in The Saddle. What was his name? Stony Roserose? Stony Darederose? Stony Neverdo? That's it - Stony Devereux!".

And by this means the Stony Devereux story passed into Ripperology folklore.

Now, try quoting me on that theory in seven years time!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,
To be honest, I'd abandon the whole 'Eddie told Mike to claim the diary came from Tony' line, it really suggests that all three were known to each other prior to the opening of the Battlecrease Biscuits.

Ooh - imagine the arguments!

EL: Damn, there's only two custard creams.
TD: Damn.
MB: Damn.
EL: Should we toss a coin for them?
TD/MB [in unison]: No!!!!!!!!!

Et ecetera.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

why are caz keith skinner and paul begg always on the side of those who beleive the diary is authentic? dont they all admit its a hoax? should they not be arguing against the gullible beleivers? all very odd. but i think everyone knows the reason why.

Hi Abby,

My take (for what it's worth) is that Caz, Keith, and Paul take the view that what is known to be true is a good starting point for any discussion and that what is accepted as true and what is accepted as false is expected to be demonstrable so they potentially rail against arguments which denounce without proper evidence to do so.

Theorising is great fun and intellectually stimulating, but - here on the Casebook - it is more often than not taken as proselytising some belief or another. I think Caz has speculated many times on many possible avenues which might lead us to a demonstrable truth (or not) and it is on the side of the reasonable argument that her natural urges side. As far as I can tell, Keith and Paul are less vocal (so actually I can't comment on their historical tendencies) but what little of them I know causes me to place them within the same philosophy: theorizing is fine, but truth and falsehood must be evidenced.

I could be quite wrong, of course, and it's truly not my place to say, but I don't think that any or indeed all of them are always on the side of the Maybrickian. If I or ero b came out with something that we claimed was categorically true or false and we hadn't shown it to be so, they would (if they all posted) challenge it, and I for one would be very disappointed if they didn't.

I think the place where you form your view is rooted deep in the heart of Bongo County where Barrett is the sheriff and everything he says goes. I suspect that people who sound Maybrickian are simply attempting to wrestle the badge off Mike's shirt because none of us are able to take his candidature for hoaxer seriously on any level whatsoever.

Maybrickian by default to you or probably more anti-Barrett by principle in reality. And - who knows - maybe that makes all of us who lean that way wrong!

That said, Abby, perhaps you should clarify for us all examples of where Caz, Keith, and Paul are "always on the side of those who believe the diary is authentic"; where they have stated that the diary is a hoax; and why they ought to be proactively arguing against the views of "the gullible believers" - and armed with those we could more properly assess whether they are demonstrating routine bias or whether you have assumed it because they potentially take a more balanced view of the arguments which crop up on here?

Ike

[PaulB]

Hi Abby,

My take (for what it's worth) is that Caz, Keith, and Paul take the view that what is known to be true is a good starting point for any discussion and that what is accepted as true and what is accepted as false is expected to be demonstrable so they potentially rail against arguments which denounce without proper evidence to do so.

Theorising is great fun and intellectually stimulating, but - here on the Casebook - it is more often than not taken as proselytising some belief or another. I think Caz has speculated many times on many possible avenues which might lead us to a demonstrable truth (or not) and it is on the side of the reasonable argument that her natural urges side. As far as I can tell, Keith and Paul are less vocal (so actually I can't comment on their historical tendencies) but what little of them I know causes me to place them within the same philosophy: theorizing is fine, but truth and falsehood must be evidenced.

I could be quite wrong, of course, and it's truly not my place to say, but I don't think that any or indeed all of them are always on the side of the Maybrickian. If I or ero b came out with something that we claimed was categorically true or false and we hadn't shown it to be so, they would (if they all posted) challenge it, and I for one would be very disappointed if they didn't.

I think the place where you form your view is rooted deep in the heart of Bongo County where Barrett is the sheriff and everything he says goes. I suspect that people who sound Maybrickian are simply attempting to wrestle the badge off Mike's shirt because none of us are able to take his candidature for hoaxer seriously on any level whatsoever.

Maybrickian by default to you or probably more anti-Barrett by principle in reality. And - who knows - maybe that makes all of us who lean that way wrong!

That said, Abby, perhaps you should clarify for us all examples of where Caz, Keith, and Paul are "always on the side of those who believe the diary is authentic"; where they have stated that the diary is a hoax; and why they ought to be proactively arguing against the views of "the gullible believers" - and armed with those we could more properly assess whether they are demonstrating routine bias or whether you have assumed it because they potentially take a more balanced view of the arguments which crop up on here?

Ike

My interest in the 'diary' waned a long time ago. I haven't read this thread, I don't have the energy to battle through the endless repetition of arguments on a thread like this, I wouldn't have known about Abby's post if my attention hadn't been drawn to it, and to say I'm not up-to-speed with the 'diary' arguments would be to put it mildly. When the 'diary' first emerged, the questions were: who wrote it, when and why? As far as I am aware, those questions have not been answered. All we have is a number of options: some people believe it was written by Mike Barrett. Others believe it was written by Ann Graham. Still others believe it was written by Mike and Ann together. Yet others believe it was written by somebody else and Mike and Ann were used as patsies. Or believe just Mike was used as a patsy. Or believe someone used Ann to make Mike a patsy. Or believe that neither Mike nor Ann had anything to do with the composition of the diary... These are the 'believers'. What Keith and Caz are doing, as far as I can tell, is pointing out the flaws in each option. They're doing what Abby Normal thinks they should be doing, namely challenging the 'believers'.

I'll remove the offensive word 'gullible' from Abby's 'gullible believers'; what I don't see is Keith and Caz defending anyone who believes the 'diary' is genuine, let alone claiming that they believe it's genuine. The problem is that Abby is casting others in the role of the 'believers' against whom he thinks Keith and Caz should be arguing, whereas he is actually the 'believer' they're arguing against. So, yes, you are correct that Keith and Caz and I want to see proper evidence - isn't that what everyone should want to see? So thank you for making that point clear.

[caz]

Hi Abby,

My take (for what it's worth) is that Caz, Keith, and Paul take the view that what is known to be true is a good starting point for any discussion and that what is accepted as true and what is accepted as false is expected to be demonstrable so they potentially rail against arguments which denounce without proper evidence to do so.

Theorising is great fun and intellectually stimulating, but - here on the Casebook - it is more often than not taken as proselytising some belief or another. I think Caz has speculated many times on many possible avenues which might lead us to a demonstrable truth (or not) and it is on the side of the reasonable argument that her natural urges side. As far as I can tell, Keith and Paul are less vocal (so actually I can't comment on their historical tendencies) but what little of them I know causes me to place them within the same philosophy: theorizing is fine, but truth and falsehood must be evidenced.

I could be quite wrong, of course, and it's truly not my place to say, but I don't think that any or indeed all of them are always on the side of the Maybrickian. If I or ero b came out with something that we claimed was categorically true or false and we hadn't shown it to be so, they would (if they all posted) challenge it, and I for one would be very disappointed if they didn't.

I think the place where you form your view is rooted deep in the heart of Bongo County where Barrett is the sheriff and everything he says goes. I suspect that people who sound Maybrickian are simply attempting to wrestle the badge off Mike's shirt because none of us are able to take his candidature for hoaxer seriously on any level whatsoever.

Maybrickian by default to you or probably more anti-Barrett by principle in reality. And - who knows - maybe that makes all of us who lean that way wrong!

That said, Abby, perhaps you should clarify for us all examples of where Caz, Keith, and Paul are "always on the side of those who believe the diary is authentic"; where they have stated that the diary is a hoax; and why they ought to be proactively arguing against the views of "the gullible believers" - and armed with those we could more properly assess whether they are demonstrating routine bias or whether you have assumed it because they potentially take a more balanced view of the arguments which crop up on here?

Ike

Hi Ike,

I couldn't count the number of times I have tried to make my position crystal clear to Abby et al. I am no more on the 'side' of the precious few here who say they believe Maybrick wrote the diary, or could have done, than I am on the 'side' of the majority here, who are as certain as they think they need to be that the diary is a Barrett production.

I refuse to be bullied by anyone over which posts I choose to consider and address and which I don't. I try to respond where I think I can add something from the record, or from my personal experience, which supports or challenges the point or argument being made, or the belief being expressed, so people can reassess their own opinions if they choose to do so. I try to steer clear of wading in just to push my own opinions, without knowing or explaining what they are based on.

So you and Abby will have to forgive me, but I won't be airing any views on the FM on the wall, the GSG in a Maybrick context or Diego Laurenz.

And I am unanimous in that.

Love,

Mrs Slocombe and Her Pussycat Monty
X

[Iconoclast]

I refuse to be bullied by anyone over which posts I choose to consider and address and which I don't.

And you have the switchblade to prove it ...