One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Darryl Kenyon]

Did we read the same thread, Ike?

The effusive praise came from one poster--Pierre. But even Pierre did not endorse the idea that the word 'Juwes' meant 'James.' Rather, Pierre praised the observation that since one word, and only one word, was misspelled, it suggested (to him, at least) that that word held some special significance. What that significance was he did not reveal.

At best, Pierre only made a few halting steps down the same garden path that you so eagerly tread.

Pierre was active during my long hiatus. I don't recall if he ever named his suspect.

Hi RJ

I believe Pierre's suspect was Henry Maxwell , husband of Caroline

Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

Thanks Darryl and Abbey.

This must be Kristina Nordquist, author of Uncovenanted?

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Darryl and Abbey.

This must be Kristina Nordquist, author of Uncovenanted?

yes. theres a thread about it here https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ist-aka-pierre

[rjpalmer]

It just seems to me that the logical place for a lay person who found what they thought to be an old diary would be the local newspaper office, like the Liverpool Echo.

Hi Scott.

Might it be a bit of a stretch to suggest that Devereux worked in a "newspaper office"? He was a printer/compositor. How much contact, if any, would he have had with the paper's journalists? There must have been a managerial layer between Devereux and the newsroom.

Meanwhile, Barrett and Devereux must have known each other, because Devereux had Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool in his possession, but how well they knew each other seems to be largely or entirely based on Barrett's own account. Harrison writes that she quizzed a bartender at the Saddle who denied that Barrett and Devereux were close, whereas Feldman quizzed a bartender at the Saddle and was told that Devereux occasionally came in around lunchtime with Barrett and Barrett's father. So, it depends on who you ask.

I don't understand the supposed relevance of Fountains Road. The alleged connection between Barrett and Lyons had to do with both men being patrons at the Saddle. It wouldn't matter one iota if Lyons (or Devereux, for that matter) lived on Elm Street or Tulip Terrace or anywhere else. It seems like an attempt to glean some meaning from something that has no meaning. How often did Lyons patronize the Saddle? We have no idea. A patron can go into their local pub every day, or they can go into their local pub once or twice a year.

I'd be curious about why you put so little stock in Martin Fido's judgment about Anne Graham's writing abilities. Fido would know, wouldn't' he? When he posted here in the early 2000s he was literally teaching a writing/research course at Boston College. He was impressed by the paper Anne Graham wrote on Liverpool laundries.

But there's always been a strange impulse among 'Ripperologists' to ignore good suspects and instead go in search of bad ones. The new theory, or the wayward theory, or the shock theory, or the forbidden theory--that's what they're always after. The right answer doesn't concern very many of them. I think they've watched too many episodes of the Midsomer Murders on t.v. They want pin the crime on some minor character that made a brief appearance in Act One.

[erobitha]

Hi Scott.

Might it be a bit of a stretch to suggest that Devereux worked in a "newspaper office"? He was a printer/compositor. How much contact, if any, would he have had with the paper's journalists? There must have been a managerial layer between Devereux and the newsroom.

Meanwhile, Barrett and Devereux must have known each other, because Devereux had Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool in his possession, but how well they knew each other seems to be largely or entirely based on Barrett's own account. Harrison writes that she quizzed a bartender at the Saddle who denied that Barrett and Devereux were close, whereas Feldman quizzed a bartender at the Saddle and was told that Devereux occasionally came in around lunchtime with Barrett and Barrett's father. So, it depends on who you ask.

I don't understand the supposed relevance of Fountains Road. The alleged connection between Barrett and Lyons had to do with both men being patrons at the Saddle. It wouldn't matter one iota if Lyons (or Devereux, for that matter) lived on Elm Street or Tulip Terrace or anywhere else. It seems like an attempt to glean some meaning from something that has no meaning. How often did Lyons patronize the Saddle? We have no idea. A patron can go into their local pub every day, or they can go into their local pub once or twice a year.

I'd be curious about why you put so little stock in Martin Fido's judgment about Anne Graham's writing abilities. Fido would know, wouldn't' he? When he posted here in the early 2000s he was literally teaching a writing/research course at Boston College. He was impressed by the paper Anne Graham wrote on Liverpool laundries.

But there's always been a strange impulse among 'Ripperologists' to ignore good suspects and instead go in search of bad ones. The new theory, or the wayward theory, or the shock theory, or the forbidden theory--that's what they're always after. The right answer doesn't concern very many of them. I think they've watched too many episodes of the Midsomer Murders on t.v. They want pin the crime on some minor character that made a brief appearance in Act One.

This is why you have a reputation of a mudlark RJ.

To just try and dismiss the relevance of Fountains Road as pure coincidence is reflective of how you enter most of your arguments.

It is significant. Eddie drank in The Saddle by his OWN admission. He knew Bob Lee and his family. He even got stick from Bob whenever he went in. This is all Eddie's own testimony.

The Saddle is in Kirkdale. It is 8 miles away from Aigburgh. It is in effect, the other side of the city.

Eddie grew up on Howley Street and went to St Joseph's School beside The Saddle. He spent most of his adult life in that area.

So we have two Fountains Road residents connected with the book from the exact same pub they both drink, on the opposite side of Liverpool from Battlecrease House. Mike's story of a dead man who can't talk, and Eddie who denies everything. Eddie also met with Robert Smith and Mike in the exact same pub. Or are you calling Robert Smith a liar?

Eddie was in Battlecrease House working under the floorboards on the exact same day Mike first phoned Doreen Montgomery.

These are established facts. No amount of mud larking can disguise them RJ.

[rjpalmer]

This is why you have a reputation of a mudlark RJ..

Only among the mud hens.

Your remarks show why you have a reputation for being a third-rate logician. You seldom think before posting.

Fountains Road IS a coincidence--even in reference to Caz Brown's theories and even if we believe Eddie stole the diary (which I don't). It's weird that Caz keeps bringing up the name of the street. Would it make one iota of difference if Devereux lived two blocks over? No.

What is relevant (supposedly) is that they were both patrons at the Saddle, and it wouldn't change anything if Devereux lived on a different street as long as it was within walking distance. What is also relevant (probably) is that Devereux was Barrett's friend and had recently died, so he was a good fall guy for the b.s. provenance tale that Mike and Anne told. I almost never agree with Caz about anything Maybrick related, but I agree with that.

Think about it. Do you think Barrett bought the diary from a man that lived on Fountains Road and then had to go and seek out another man who lived on Fountains Road for the sake of his bogus provenance, and that if Devereux had lived on Tulip Terrace instead, Barrett wouldn't have chosen him for this role? The street Devereux lived on does not enter the equation.

You're the one "mudlarking" if you're trying to glean some meaning from this.

It is a coincidence. Whether it is also a coincidence that they were both patrons at The Saddle remains to be seen, but that's a different point. The Fountain Road/Fountains Road gimmick is a way to verbally link Barrett to Lyons, which is not in evidence other than that Lyons lived near the pub and admitted to going there on occasion.

That's coincidence enough without bringing in the irrelevant fact that he lived on the same long street as Devereux.

[rjpalmer]

So we have two Fountains Road residents connected with the book.

I'm not sure everyone here is going to be happy with you connecting Devereux to 'the book' but let's set that aside.

The point you don't seem to quite grasp is that Lyons BECAME a suspect because he lived near the Saddle.

Again, think it through.


The manager asked his employees if any of the men ever drank at the Saddle and two said they did. One of them (Eddie) did so because it was his local. He lived very close to it.

It was because of this that Eddie then became the focus of Feldman's inquiries.

If Eddie had been a suspect first and then it was later learned that he lived near the Saddle, the coincidence would be far more startling.

You do grasp this point, yes?

And can you see why this subtle or not so subtle difference would matter to someone like Lord Orsam when he critiqued Robert Smith's theories?

I can't speak for Orsam, but I imagine he thinks it goes something like this.

There were 8 or 10 electricians who worked for Portus & Rhodes. Probably most of them patronized 2 or 3 pubs. We don't really have any information. Maybe one of them was a teetotaler and never drank, and maybe one or two were drunks. We don't know. But let's say there were about 20 pubs in total these blokes went into on occasion. It seems like a plausible number.

The manager, having been alerted to Bongo Barrett--the man who said he got the Diary of Jack the Ripper from a dead friend down the boozer--asks his men if any drank at Barrett's pub, The Saddle. Two admitted that they did. How big a coincidence this was would depend on the men's drinking habits, and we don't have any real information.

Either way, it was BECAUSE of Eddie's geographical proximity to the Saddle that he became the 'suspect.' There wasn't actually any prior suspicion against him or even evidence that he worked at Dodd's house on 9 March (yes, I know you dispute this, but that's another argument).

But because Lyons worked for Dodd and because he also lived near the Saddle, Feldman quizzed him. And according to Feldman, Eddie smelled a potential payday and took the opportunity of this questioning to ask Feldy what it would be worth to say he found the diary. It's not evidence that he actually did, and indeed Feldman concluded he was just an opportunist. Whatever the case, if Eddy had lived somewhere else, it is entirely possible that he wouldn't have been the one placed under the microscope, and so he wouldn't have had the opportunity to make this suspicious offer to Feldman.

Of course, you and Caz think Feldy was wrong, and that Lyons did steal the diary and thus find great meaning in Eddie having lived near the Saddle. I get that.

I merely wanted to point out that there is another way of looking at it and it has nothing to do with your repetitive bleat of 'mud larking.'

[Iconoclast]

The reference to Fountains Road is the reference to The Saddle, RJ. It's just another way of stating the same coincidence (if coincidence it was). You are right, Eddie could have lived on the grassy knoll at Elm Street or in Tulip Street or anywhere else near The Saddle. 'Fountains Road' is just a handy term for 'The Saddle' which does seem to be the crux of the 'coincidence'. And you're also right (as far as I recall) that Eddie only came under the spotlight because he drank in The Saddle. It's a bit like saying that James Maybrick only came under the spotlight because of the Victorian scrapbook, though. Once you have a piece of evidence and you can link it to an actor in the story, you have a worthy link to investigate. The fact that this was how Feldman pinpointed Eddie does not - to me - seem particularly newsworthy.

And the fact that Devereux lived in Fountains Road is also irrelevant (as you note). He could have lived in Tipperary Street but - so long as Barrett could say he knew him - that was by the by. The crucial bit was that Barrett knew Devereux and could therefore use him as his foil for a provenance.

Some key concepts to properly grasp here, dear readers:

• Eddie Lyons was under the floorboards (as it were) in Battlecrease House on the morning of March 9, 1992
• Despite potentially ringing from absolutely anywhere in the world, Michael Barrett was in Goldie Street, Liverpool, that afternoon ringing about having the scrapbook of Jack the Ripper
• There's fully eight (E-I-G-H-T) miles between those two events but they conveniently coalesce in The Saddle pub in Fountains Road
• The implication is inescapable: Lyons lifted the scrapbook from Battlecrease and Barrett came to know of that fact a few hours later (and possibly paid good money to own it, or borrowed it on the promise of reaching out to his 'literary contacts')
• Barrett therefore knew it was half-inched so created a back story via the sadly diseased Tony Devereux (sensible move)
• Devereux lived in Fountains Road too which was definitely a coincidence and not one that we need labour over (it would have been just as significant if he had lived in Tipperary Street - just as long as it was an established fact that Barrett knew him)
• Barrett did not want anyone knocking on his door claiming 'his' scrapbook back so he sought out a doppelganger which - if the cat was out the bag and he was pushed - he would present as the 'diary' he had acquired from Eddie Lyons, keeping the actual scrapbook for himself

It's actually very simple. No need for any other interpretation. Fate does not favour the fainthearted, and Michael Barrett was not fainthearted. He knew what he had was hot property in two very distinct meanings of the term so he backward-engineered an unbreakable provenance to exclude Eddie from the potential riches and keep the erstwhile owner of the scrapbook at arm's length. His greatest hour, I'd say. His only hour ...

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

Might it be a bit of a stretch to suggest that Devereux worked in a "newspaper office"? He was a printer/compositor. How much contact, if any, would he have had with the paper's journalists? There must have been a managerial layer between Devereux and the newsroom.
.
.
.
I'd be curious about why you put so little stock in Martin Fido's judgment about Anne Graham's writing abilities. Fido would know, wouldn't' he? When he posted here in the early 2000s he was literally teaching a writing/research course at Boston College. He was impressed by the paper Anne Graham wrote on Liverpool laundries.

Hi RJ,

I was suggesting another possible way the diary got into Barrett's hands without directly involving Eddie Lyons. That is, somebody found it and brought it to the newspaper office knowing it looked old, but they not quite sure exactly what to do with it. For some reason Devereux may have gotten it instead of a journalist.

My idea is still that Lyons, after talking with Mike in the pub on that March date, gave him the idea of a diary provenance from Dodd's house.

I know Devereux's daughters were interviewed about the diary and denied knowing anything about it, but that doesn't mean Tony couldn't have hid it while he had it, or while he was creating a rewrite version.

I do take stock in AG's writing abilities. Her co-authoring a book on Florence Maybrick is suspicious to say the least, but I'm not sure how much of the book was actually written by Anne. Incidentally, I don't think her handwriting resembles that in the diary, except for an odd letter formation, or two.

[rjpalmer]

Ike, Old Man,

it seems like it was only a couple of weeks ago that you were giving long, loving looks in the direction of Anne Graham's provenance tale. You're all in...until you're not.

Anyway, when quizzed many years later, Eddie admitted to being at Riversdale Road on the coincidental day, but why wouldn't he, considering he had been at Riversdale Road.....later that summer?

Can you tell me where you were at 11 a.m. on 9 March 1992?

Of course not, and neither could Eddie.

Well, I'm off.

I was a bit worried about you last Sunday, but I am relieved that you don't seem too arsed by Arsenal. Maybe your boys can handle the lowly team from Leeds this weekend.

They show the Premier League over here so I was able to see much of the game. But it does no good to just keep kicking and kicking and kicking. The ball needs to go into the net.

Ciao.

[rjpalmer]

I do take stock in AG's writing abilities. Her co-authoring a book on Florence Maybrick is suspicious to say the least, but I'm not sure how much of the book was actually written by Anne. Incidentally, I don't think her handwriting resembles that in the diary, except for an odd letter formation, or two.

People have tried to downplay Anne's writing abilities in the past by insinuating that Carol Emmas wrote most of the book, but there is no evidence for this, and the introduction is solely credited to Anne Graham. According bookfinder and Amazon.com, Carol Emmas has exactly one book to her credit: the same book co-written by Anne. She was a journalist student at the time but was primarily a photographer. Only later did she write for a magazine (something about wine) but then we also have the magazine articles that Barrett published in the 1980s that Anne admitted to having tidied up, which I take to mean rewritten. Fido based his reasoning on something else, of course, so we have even other examples. I've also been impressed by Anne's long spoken statement to Harrison and Feldman and Montgomery which sounds like she's reading from a prepared statement she had personally written. Jones and Dolgin refer to a long letter written to Paul Feldman on page 9 of their book, but this important statement has not been released, understandably so, since it was not meant for public consumption.

As for the handwriting, we'll have to agree to disagree. I've seen an entire chart comparing the handwriting in the diary to Anne's so it wasn't only based on one or two letters. It's based on a number of weird idiosyncrasies that are evident in both her five paged letter and in the Diary. Have you ever seen anyone write the word "for" as fr? How about the weird capital M with one huge hump and one tiny hump? And then there's the double t.., etc. She also has certain spelling errors and uses malaprops and both of these make appearances in the Diary.

Barrat's point wasn't that this proves Anne was the penman. His point is that Barrett's supposedly false confession could have collapsed on the first hurdle if her handwriting was obviously and clearly different from the diarist's. That's not the case, though. Barrett's account withstands scrutiny on this point, just as his claim about buying the ink at the art shop as withstood scrutiny, even though it could have failed utterly had they not sold an iron gall ink with nigrosine, let alone with chloroacetamide.

The slant in the diary is the main difference, but this could be explained by someone writing with their other hand. I had an aunt that could do this because often lefties were taught to write with their right hand in the 40s and 50s. I've read that people forced to do this tend to have rounder writing, but I'm obviously no expert.

PS. If, for the sake of argument, Anne turned out to be the pen person, it doesn't necessarily prove that she was involved in the hoax. Does that sound crazy? I don't think so.

David Barrat wrote an article along the lines of 'how the diary could have been legal.' The idea is that the fictional text was written in the scrapbook as a marketing ploy to sell the idea to potential publishers. I don't know if that was Barrett's plan, and I have my doubts, but I have long wondered if that is what he had told Anne. He could have told her it was just a marketing gimmick for the sake of his agent and the publishers, but once he got to London, he would make sure they understood it was a work of fiction. Only when Barrett did show up in London, he didn't tell them this. To his surprise, they took it seriously. And it is possible that when he got back to Liverpool and Anne figured this out, this was when they physically fought over the diary on the kitchen floor, as reported by their daughter to Paul Begg. Clearly, there was some sort of blow-up behind the scenes. I think it makes sense based on Anne's later statements about never intending to have had the diary published and believing that the literary agent would have just sent Mike "packing." It makes sense. It jives. It doesn't particularly jive with the idea of the diary being old and stolen, nor would Anne have gone deeper into the whole fiasco if she had had nothing to do with something Mike had just brought home from the pub.

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks for the feedback, RJ. I think it's quite possible that Mike was handed a finished product, originally intended as a spoof. After a short time he became bored with it and tried to write his own version, with Anne's help, but gave up as time was running out on the deadline to turn it in. This scenario suggests Anne would have been in on it from the beginning, and it was probably she who got the diary from Devereux to give to Mike. Mike and Anne could have been involved in a rewrite with Devereux, who was the principal creator/writer.

No?? Everything still remains speculation on this subject until new information emerges, like what exactly did Lyons tell Robert Smith?

[Iconoclast]

Ike, Old Man,
it seems like it was only a couple of weeks ago that you were giving long, loving looks in the direction of Anne Graham's provenance tale.

I think you must be confusing interest with admiration, RJ. I'm interested in Anne's provenance, but I much admire the Battlecrease one.

You're all in...until you're not.

Story of my life!

Anyway, when quizzed many years later, Eddie admitted to being at Riversdale Road on the coincidental day, but why wouldn't he, considering he had been at Riversdale Road.....later that summer?

As I recall, but would certainly have to check, Eddie admitted to being at Riversdale Road as a walk-on part in March 1992 (though I doubt he named the month) rather than later in the year when he was there as a main character.

Can you tell me where you were at 11 a.m. on 9 March 1992?

Bizarrely, I can, though I admit I had to check back.

Of course not, and neither could Eddie.

I agree that neither Eddie (nor I) would have been able to spontaneously recall a date, but we could both have recalled what we had taken part in and where we had been in order so to do.

Well, I'm off.

Temporarily, do say?

I was a bit worried about you last Sunday ...

The time to worry about me over footballer was from May 4, 1974 to October 7, 2021. Before that and after that, I have been a very contented follower of the Barcodes and the Jambos (of the latter of which, by the way, I was a season ticket holder at 11am on March 9, 1992, though I was not actually at the very appropriately-named Tynecastle at that particular hour).

... but I am relieved that you don't seem too arsed by Arsenal.

Well, I was certainly disappointed. We need just six more points for a place in the Champions League next season so obviously I was hoping three would have come last Sunday (as they did last season in the same fixture) but we were out-thought, out-played, and even rather out-classed by a much superior team so one much accept the loss and move on.

Maybe your boys can handle the lowly team from Leeds this weekend.

Well I don't want to relegate Leeds as I rather like them but needs must if we can, I'm afraid. They have a tough run-in so I certainly worry for them. I saw Bruce Springsteen at Roundhay Park in 1984 (or was it 1987, I think it may have been) and a fight broke out in the crowd! Unbelievable - those Leeds boys will scrap anywhere, over anything!

They show the Premier League over here so I was able to see much of the game. But it does no good to just keep kicking and kicking and kicking. The ball needs to go into the net.

I can't decide whether that is simply your footballing philosophy or perhaps an analogy of some sort? My brother-in-law in Vale, Colorado, gets more Premier League action than I do. Which seems all wrong ...

Ciao.

Temporarily, do say?

[Iconoclast]

The point you don't seem to quite grasp is that Lyons BECAME a suspect because he lived near the Saddle.

I think this was true but primarily via Paul Feldman's research. He heard about the work completed by Portus & Rhodes and he then identified that Eddie Lyons lived in his girlfriend's house in Fountains Road and that he drank in The Saddle.

Again, think it through. The manager asked his employees if any of the men ever drank at the Saddle and two said they did. One of them (Eddie) did so because it was his local. He lived very close to it.

I don't think Colin Rhodes ever asked his employees if they drank in The Saddle. He only asked them if they had found anything under the floorboards. You may be thinking about the Sunday Times article on September 19, 1993, which read:

"Colin Rhodes, boss of the building firm which did the rewiring at Battlecrease, Maybrick's former house, has questioned most of his work-force. They deny finding anything under the floorboards, but two say they went drinking in The Saddle, where they might have talked about their work in a house famous for its murder."

This is obviously ambiguous because it possibly conjoins two lines of evidence - Rhodes' questioning of his employees and any subsequent revelation that Lyons drank in The Saddle.

It was because of this that Eddie then became the focus of Feldman's inquiries.

Whenever it came to light, it did not come to light via Colin Rhodes. Why on earth would he even think to mention The Saddle, eight miles away from where Battlecrease is located?

If Eddie had been a suspect first and then it was later learned that he lived near the Saddle, the coincidence would be far more startling.

Technically, when Rhodes asked his employees if they had found anything, you could argue that Lyons was indeed a 'suspect' of sorts. It's a moot point, but he was 'in the frame' because he was part of the team that fateful day and being a member of the team that fateful day eventually (or previously) led Feldman to him. not whether or not Rhodes had mentioned The Saddle.

The manager, having been alerted to Bongo Barrett--the man who said he got the Diary of Jack the Ripper from a dead friend down the boozer--asks his men if any drank at Barrett's pub, The Saddle. Two admitted that they did. How big a coincidence this was would depend on the men's drinking habits, and we don't have any real information.

I think you need to put up or shut up on this one, RJ. You need to demonstrate that Rhodes ever mentioned The Saddle to his employees. I don't believe that evidence exists but am happy to be corrected.

Either way, it was BECAUSE of Eddie's geographical proximity to the Saddle that he became the 'suspect.'

I think it was because Feldman pursued the electricians and it emerged that Lyons drank in The Saddle. Again, Rhodes had no reason to ever ask such a question of Lyons (or anyone else).

There wasn't actually any prior suspicion against him or even evidence that he worked at Dodd's house on 9 March (yes, I know you dispute this, but that's another argument).

There was no evidence in 1993 that Lyons had worked on Battlecrease House's floorboards on March 9, 1992 but the suspicion naturally fell on the wider group of electricians and - once they were researched by Feldman's team - it quickly emerged that Lyons drank in The Saddle. The inference was very much there to be made, and history has supported that supposition when Lyons admitted to being there (although one might argue that he meant July 1992 - I still need to check what he actually claimed in 2016).

But because Lyons worked for Dodd and because he also lived near the Saddle, Feldman quizzed him.

There you go - you knew this all along, man!

And according to Feldman, Eddie smelled a potential payday and took the opportunity of this questioning to ask Feldy what it would be worth to say he found the diary.

And - as I have argued before - Lyons may very well have sniffed a payday and also have lifted the scrapbook from Battlecrease. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive and it is a shame Feldman instinctively assumed that they were.

It's not evidence that he actually did, and indeed Feldman concluded he was just an opportunist.

And Feldman may well have been wrong.

Whatever the case, if Eddy had lived somewhere else, it is entirely possible that he wouldn't have been the one placed under the microscope, and so he wouldn't have had the opportunity to make this suspicious offer to Feldman.

That seems rather teasingly like a huge statement of the blindingly obvious?

Of course, you and Caz think Feldy was wrong, and that Lyons did steal the diary and thus find great meaning in Eddie having lived near the Saddle. I get that.

Make that three of us, then, RJ. I think the prima facie evidence is unbelievably pointed firmly towards this conclusion.

I merely wanted to point out that there is another way of looking at it and it has nothing to do with your repetitive bleat of 'mud larking.'

The fact that it was hard (even now) to follow what your alternative way of looking at it really amounted to does lend itself to a certain brief frisson of the mud stuff.

If you are the sort of person who finds mud thrilling, of course ...

[Iconoclast]

Ike, Old Man,
Can you tell me where you were at 11 a.m. on 9 March 1992?

By the way, RJ, did you specify 11am randomly (just to illustrate your point) or specifically (to make one)? If it was the latter then the key time is more around 9am as the work was started at 8.30am (IIRC) and Lyons recalled being sent down as an afterthought (because he wasn't on the Skem job that day). It is therefore likely that Lyons found the Victorian scrapbook around 9am-11am (if he found it at all, of course).

I checked-in with Keith just to clarify your Rhodes comments and he said:

"Regarding the date of March 9th 1992, I have a fairly strong recollection that when I spoke with Colin Rhodes in 2004, I made the point that as EL's name was not on the timesheet for March 9th 1992, that took him out of the picture as far as I was concerned. It was Colin Rhodes himself that introduced the possibility that EL could have been at Riversdale Road on March 9th 1992 and an explanation as to why EL's name was not on the timesheet. Plus, in the filmed interview with EL, I distinctly remember making the same point to EL that as his name did not appear on the timesheet for March 9th 1992, then if the diary did come out of the house on that date, it could have had nothing to do with him. But EL insisted he was there on that day. There didn't appear to be any doubt in his answer or hesitation he might have confused it with another occasion. Plus, in retrospect, I did wonder why it would have made any difference to him that Mike contacted Doreen on that date?".

Keith's inference is clear: if Eddie Lyons categorically had nothing to do with the liberation of the Victorian scrapbook from Battlecrease on the morning of March 9, 1992, what did it matter to him that Barrett had sought to garner interest in the 'diary' of Jack the Ripper later that day, eight miles away, and yet just twenty minutes walk away from The Saddle?

I do so love this little exchange during Keith's (and Coral Atkins') discussion with Colin Rhodes on July 2, 2004:

CR: Whether Arthur knew anything or not, I don’t know what came of it.
KS: Mmhm. I mean what we really want to try, what we’re trying to do is, one; to see if there is anything in this story, or if there isn’t we can close it off completely.
CR: I have to ask myself, why is there so much secrecy about it?
KS: Yeah.
CR: If they did find something, and they moved it on -
KS: Yes.
CR: And Barrett did get hold of it -
KS: Yes.
CR: Ehm - why are they all closing ranks and not saying anything?
CA: Because I think they would feel that it had been stolen from Battlecrease House.
CR: Well yeah, I remember being at a house and we lifted these floorboards and I was actually there at the time, just by chance, lifted the boards up and we found a big sweet jar, you know the big sweet jars with screw-on tops?
KS: Yes.
CR: Absolutely full of five-pound notes.
CA: Oh my.
CR: And the lady was in the house and I called her over and said, “You better come and have a look at this”, and “Oh”, she said, “we knew my husband had money in the house”, but of course he had actually died several months ago and they didn’t know where all this money was.
KS: And it was an example -
CR: And I’ve wondered, had I not have been there, what would have happened to those jars?
CA: Yeah, they might have just gone.
CR: You never really know. Anyway, that’s -
KS: Oh no, it’s a very -
CA: Do you think it accounts for the secrecy? And Mike Barrett couldn’t say he’d got it from one of the electricians who had nicked it because then he wouldn’t have ownership of it, it belongs to Mr Dodd. I mean, if we prove that it came from there then it belongs to Mr Dodd and I would say it probably is genuine if it came from there.
CR: Yes.

So Colin Rhodes was under no illusion that some of his employees may have been a little light-fingered if the opportunity arose. Interesting.