One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[FISHY1118]

Good Lord,!!... Is there something in that last post that remotely has anything to do with the serial killer JACK the Ripper ?

Short answer... NO.

[Iconoclast]

Good Lord,!!... Is there something in that last post that remotely has anything to do with the serial killer JACK the Ripper ?

Short answer... NO.

The short answer was 'Yes', Fishy, which just goes to show your depth of knowledge regarding the Maybrick scrapbook. Not much of a plop, I venture, if you dropped a pebble into the well ...

[rjpalmer]

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.

Didn't EL also insist that he hadn't met Robert Smith down at the Saddle? Yet we are told that he did meet him, so it sounds like Eddie's memory of these events is not trustworthy.

One would have to hear the entire exchange. The small section that Keith kindly passes on leaves more questions than answer. Was Lyons specifically reminded that he HAD been at Riversdale Road...later that summer? If so, what did he say about it? Heaven knows that a person can be entirely confident about a memory and yet be entirely wrong about it.

And let's remember that Eddie denies having found the diary and having sold it to Barrett. You can speculate that he's lying, of course, but if I understand Chris Jones's point, if he is lying about this, why wouldn't he have also denied having been there that day? No one can prove otherwise, and in the general scheme of things thieves don't have a habit of unnecessarily putting themselves at the scene of the crime they are denying any involvement in.

Can anyone imagine John Dillinger insisting that he had been in Omaha on the day of the big heist, while insisting that he hadn't robbed the Omaha bank? Why on earth would he do that?

From Jones's point of view, this admission actually hurts your case instead of helping it.

[FISHY1118]

The short answer was 'Yes', Fishy, which just goes to show your depth of knowledge regarding the Maybrick scrapbook. Not much of a plop, I venture, if you dropped a pebble into the well ...

The Maybrick ''Fake '' Scrapbook, dont forget that part.


There is no need for knowledge or interest in something that has been clearly shown to be fake .

A Cotton Merchant, Nothing more . Who by the way apparently removed Eddowes kidney in less than ten minutes in the near darkness in Mitre Square !!! .

As Trevor has reminded us time and time again ,the human kidney is an extremely difficult organ to locate and remove in that short amount of time .Its near on impossible to expect a cotton merchant could do that no more than one would a bricklayer or plumber . .

Where in this scrapbook do we have an explaination to this feat ?

Instead of quoting useless information contained the scrapheap [ oops book ], let start showing evidence on how a cotton merchant was able to kill these women and do what he did to their bodies.

Then start showing proof he was in whitechapel on all the days the murders were committed .

That he matched witness descriptions on the night of the murders. The man Schwartz identifed who assaulted Liz Stride and was most probably her killer , was nothing like James Maybrick


Now here what i think youll reply with Ike , youll have no doubt an answer for the above points ,but what you wont be able to do is say you got them from the scrapbook.

Then all youll be left with is like every other suspect on theses boards thats been mentioned as the Whitechapel killer ,that is a whole bunch of circumstancial evidence that makes your suspect no more Jack the Ripper than anybody elses.

[rjpalmer]

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).

Please reformulate this muddled comment and resubmit. Thanks.

[rjpalmer]

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.

It's not very interesting, Ike. At least not to me.

Back in the day, didn't Rhodes deny that his employees found something at Dodd's house and even threatened a lawsuit to protect the good name and reputation of his company? I'm fairly certain that I read something along those lines in one of the Liverpool papers.

His own anecdote also gives an example of an electrician (himself) doing the right thing. That he goes on to idly wonder if his employees would have done the same thing is hardly evidence of anything, as I hope you would admit.

With apologies to Coral, how is Rhodes expected to answer the question that you highlighted? Mr. Rhodes is being asked to agree with a speculative theory. He has no real information to give about Lyons finding something, selling something, or even knowing Mike Barrett. He's asked to agree with speculation. The lack of cooperation from one electrician is described as "secrecy" but I am old enough to remember supporters of the Diary loudly scoffing at Gerard Kane's lack of cooperation. Kane wanted "you people" (evidently meaning Alan Gray & Co) to leave him alone, and the supporters of the Diary entirely understood Kane's exasperation at being hounded by Ripperologists and drew no conclusions from it. Should we similarly draw no conclusions from an electrician declining to be interviewed, if that is what is being referred to?

The information that Feldman heard from the bartender at the Saddle is that Mike and Tony and Stanley would sometimes show up at around lunchtime. Barrett's own account is that he would be there shortly before school let out. Barrett was unemployed and Tony and Stanley were retired, so it's reasonable that they would be there mid-day. By contrast, what information can you provide to show us that Lyons, who had a daytime job, would be adhering to this same schedule? Why would I want to assume that he knew Barrett? Wouldn't Barrett have been home with his wife and daughter at the time that Lyons would likely stop at the pub, that is, if he was even a regular patron? I hardly think Barrett would have been taking Little Caroline to the pub at 5 pm, would he?

The gossip we hear about something being stolen from Battlecrease paints a picture that I can only describe as...muddy. A jar of five-pound notes has inherent value, so Rhodes' anecdote isn't very impressive if we are also constantly treated to the theory that the diary would have been seen as little more than an "old book." One version even has the book being tossed into a skip. So was it stolen, or was it thrown into the rubbish? Is Lyons supposed to have instantly recognized the diary's value, and risked his job for it, or to have not instantly recognized its value? Why is he risking his job for this "old book"?

And if Lyons was supposedly dishonest and just the type who would steal a jar of fivers or the Diary of Jack the Ripper (yet went on to peddle it for a mere twenty quid) then why does the main story about Lyons have him running down the driveway announcing that he may have found something important? Does a man generally broadcast to his coworkers that he found something important and valuable before slipping it inside his work apron? What exactly is your scenario?

I am not attempting to dissuade you from your convictions--which would be a futile task--I'm just explaining why I don't find your theory coherent. The idea that Barrett tried to buy a blank Victorian diary from Martin Earl in order to set the asking price for the Diary of Jack the Ripper from Lyons is not even slightly credible. Is Lyons suppose to have waited around for three weeks while Barrett got this invoice from Earl and then Mike merely had to wave it under his nose and Lyons gave up the goods at such a bargain? None of it makes any sense, Old Man. None of it.

[Iconoclast]

Back in the day, didn't Rhodes deny that his employees found something at Dodd's house and even threatened a lawsuit to protect the good name and reputation of his company? I'm fairly certain that I read something along those lines in one of the Liverpool papers.

Dear, dear me, RJ. If Colin Rhodes had suspected that one or more of his employees might have been a little light-fingered in an opportunistic moment, and if Colin Rhodes had a business to protect, does it seem possible to you that he might have asked them all if they'd taken anything, got a resounding 'No', and then took that to the papers (or whoever) stating that his employees had taken nothing? Is it even remotely possible that he might have done this whilst not 100% trusting the answers to he got from his employees (who he would know would be motivated to stay in a job)? As ever, you're trying far too hard to turn something quite mundane into something steeped in insight.

His own anecdote also gives an example of an electrician (himself) doing the right thing. That he goes on to idly wonder if his employees would have done the same thing is hardly evidence of anything, as I hope you would admit.

Colin Rhodes was not simply an electrician when he reported the jar of fivers to the owner of the house. He was the business owner with greater concerns than simply pocketing an unexpected pony or two. What this tells you is that his potential actions as an electrician are not informed by this example.

With apologies to Coral, how is Rhodes expected to answer the question that you highlighted? Mr. Rhodes is being asked to agree with a speculative theory. He has no real information to give about Lyons finding something, selling something, or even knowing Mike Barrett. He's asked to agree with speculation. The lack of cooperation from one electrician is described as "secrecy" but I am old enough to remember supporters of the Diary loudly scoffing at Gerard Kane's lack of cooperation. Kane wanted "you people" (evidently meaning Alan Gray & Co) to leave him alone, and the supporters of the Diary entirely understood Kane's exasperation at being hounded by Ripperologists and drew no conclusions from it. Should we similarly draw no conclusions from an electrician declining to be interviewed, if that is what is being referred to?

Not a conversation I recall being a part of, RJ so - to follow your own logic - I have nothing to offer in response.

The information that Feldman heard from the bartender at the Saddle is that Mike and Tony and Stanley would sometimes show up at around lunchtime. Barrett's own account is that he would be there shortly before school let out. Barrett was unemployed and Tony and Stanley were retired, so it's reasonable that they would be there mid-day. By contrast, what information can you provide to show us that Lyons, who had a daytime job, would be adhering to this same schedule? Why would I want to assume that he knew Barrett? Wouldn't Barrett have been home with his wife and daughter at the time that Lyons would likely stop at the pub, that is, if he was even a regular patron? I hardly think Barrett would have been taking Little Caroline to the pub at 5 pm, would he?

I don't think anyone has suggested that Eddie Lyons would be a lunchtime regular at The Saddle, have they? He only needed to be there (or thereabouts) on March 9, 1992. Is that possible? Well, he'd been sent down to Battlecrease as a casual worker and may well have completed his casual assistance by lunchtime and gone home. Doesn't mean he did it every day, so we shouldn't use that as a premise towards our conclusion, should we?

The gossip we hear about something being stolen from Battlecrease paints a picture that I can only describe as...muddy. A jar of five-pound notes has inherent value, so Rhodes' anecdote isn't very impressive if we are also constantly treated to the theory that the diary would have been seen as little more than an "old book." One version even has the book being tossed into a skip. So was it stolen, or was it thrown into the rubbish? Is Lyons supposed to have instantly recognized the diary's value, and risked his job for it, or to have not instantly recognized its value? Why is he risking his job for this "old book"?

It was Lyons himself who mentioned the skip so I'm not sure you can use that to lighten the 'crime' (the criminal was less guilty by dint of having made the item he stole 'trash' before he put it in his car). Any tradesman who throws away an item from a house knows he or she cannot then pick it up as 'discarded rubbish'. Anyway, we have no way of knowing if that is actually what Lyons did.

But I agree wholeheartedly with you that it would have felt psychologically easier to lift 'an old book' than to take a jar of fivers as one has no obvious value and the other very transparent (in both senses of the term) value. I can well understand if someone found an old book under the floorboards and thought to take it away on the grounds that no actual value was being removed from the house. I don't know, of course, as I wasn't there at the time.

And if Lyons was supposedly dishonest and just the type who would steal a jar of fivers or the Diary of Jack the Ripper (yet went on to peddle it for a mere twenty quid) then why does the main story about Lyons have him running ...

Why do you say 'running'? There has never once been a report of Lyons running down the driveway to 'catch up' with Rawes as he reversed the firm's van out onto the street. Why would you say he was running? Ah - hold on - 'running' makes him sound frantic! Like he was in a desperate, terrified state.

No, no, no, no, no. Eddie Lyons was not running, and he was not frantic, and he was not terrified. He was evidently mulling something over as he calmly guided Rawes out of the driveway and onto the street. As Rawes was about to drive away, Lyons' concerns caused him to blurt out that he had found something and he thought it might be important. It is described by Rawes as more of an afterthought than a crazed pelt down the gravel path, arms waving crazily, screaming "I have a confession to make!!!". I don't see Lyons as a modern-day Raskolnikov here, not at all. But Rawes' story does strongly suggest that being back at Battlecrease that July 1992 day had prompted a series of thoughts which had eventually crystallised as 'concern'.

Does a man generally broadcast to his coworkers that he found something important and valuable before slipping it inside his work apron?

But you and I know that it was July 17, 1992, so what exactly was he slipping into his apron, RJ, other than prototypical versions of your finest mud?

What exactly is your scenario?

Lyons took the scrapbook on March 9, 1992, and subsequently sold it or allowed it to get into the hands of Mike Barrett after which he never saw it again.
Lyons had started to hear rumours of a publishing deal involving Mike Barrett by the summer of 1992.
Lyons was back at Battlecrease on July 17, 1992. This jogged his memory (if it had not already been seriously jogged by the mention of Barrett's name and a publishing deal down the boozer).
As he mulled it over, he realised that what he had taken out of that house on March 9, 1992, may have had a great deal more value than he had first imagined.
Rawes appears. Lyons is uncomfortable and wants to offload. So he tells Rawes that he had found something and it might be important. Rawes tells him to tell Colin Rhodes and leaves.
Lyons knows telling Colin Rhodes would be the stupidest thing he'd done since allowing the scrapbook to fall into the hands of our rag and bone man literary genius.
Lyons keeps schtum.

Simples enough for you?

I am not attempting to dissuade you from your convictions--which would be a futile task--I'm just explaining why I don't find your theory coherent. The idea that Barrett tried to buy a blank Victorian diary from Martin Earl in order to set the asking price for the Diary of Jack the Ripper from Lyons is not even slightly credible. Is Lyons suppose to have waited around for three weeks while Barrett got this invoice from Earl and then Mike merely had to wave it under his nose and Lyons gave up the goods at such a bargain? None of it makes any sense, Old Man. None of it.

This is my favourite bit of your entire post.

When did I ever claim that Barrett was seeking a Victorian diary because he wanted to know how much to pay Eddie Lyons?

Are you keeping up here, RJ? It's not my theory so why are you addressing it to me?

And even if years ago I had mooted it (I don't recall), I think I have made my current position very clear. Barrett needed a doppelgänger in case the police or the rightful owner came knocking at his door wanting the Victorian 'diary' with the blank pages in back.

[rjpalmer]

Not a conversation I recall being a part of, RJ so - to follow your own logic - I have nothing to offer in response.

Strange response, Ike. You're the one who took the time to repost the comment here and even made a decision to use a bright bold red ink that would put Tom Bulling to shame. As such, I'm going to assume that you were attempting to draw our attention to it and believed we would find some meaning in it. Alas, I have no idea what you were attempting to express with this comment. How is it meaningful?

[rjpalmer]

I don't think anyone has suggested that Eddie Lyons would be a lunchtime regular at The Saddle, have they? He only needed to be there (or thereabouts) on March 9, 1992. Is that possible? Well, he'd been sent down to Battlecrease as a casual worker and may well have completed his casual assistance by lunchtime and gone home. Doesn't mean he did it every day, so we shouldn't use that as a premise towards our conclusion, should we?

So, Lyons didn't go to The Saddle to specifically peddle this 'old book' to the well-known and successful local writer for Celebrity Magazine? I guess that was Caz's theory and not your own.

The lunchtime/early afternoon schedule was mentioned because that's the only information we have about Barrett's drinking routine. Barrett (we are told) then picked up his daughter from the school and went home. Meanwhile, we have zero evidence that Lyons was there that day or even followed the same mid-day routine, and it seems unlikely that he would have if he was regularly employed.

That's all I have to offer.

Since the events you describe are strictly theoretical and you aren't presenting any evidence that they actually happened, you put your readers in an uncomfortable and skeptical frame of mind--all we can offer you in response to your musings is our opinions about your theory's plausibility. Forget about accuracy--that's not even on the table.

In a way, we might as well be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Why would we assume Lyons and Barrett knew each other if, based on the limited information we have, they followed different routines? Or are you suggesting Lyons was attempting to sell stolen goods to a complete stranger?

Are we finally face-to-face with Martin Fido's mythical Scouser who is selling the Diary of Jack the Ripper out of the back of a van? Is that what you are suggesting?

Make it work, Ike. Make it work.

[rjpalmer]

Two more comments, Ike, then I must head out for a couple or three days.

It was Lyons himself who mentioned the skip so I'm not sure you can use that to lighten the 'crime' (the criminal was less guilty by dint of having made the item he stole 'trash' before he put it in his car).

This wasn't the original point, but according to Dodd--and he would know--there was no skip. One doesn't require a skip to install baseboard heaters--it's not like he was reroofing the house. Thus, Lyons introduced a falsehood into his narrative. The conclusion that many would draw is that he was describing an event that never happened.

No, no, no, no, no. Eddie Lyons was not running, and he was not frantic, and he was not terrified. He was evidently mulling something over as he calmly guided Rawes out of the driveway and onto the street. As Rawes was about to drive away, Lyons' concerns caused him to blurt out that he had found something and he thought it might be important. It is described by Rawes as more of an afterthought than a crazed pelt down the gravel path, arms waving crazily, screaming "I have a confession to make!!!". I don't see Lyons as a modern-day Raskolnikov here, not at all. But Rawes' story does strongly suggest that being back at Battlecrease that July 1992 day had prompted a series of thoughts which had eventually crystallised as 'concern'..

You take umbrage at the word "running" but are fine with injecting "mulling"?

It sounds like you are describing Raskolnikov, Ike.

If I understand you correctly, back in March, Lyons steals a watch and the Diary of Jack the Ripper from under some floorboards, which he fences for a smallish windfall.

Then, racked by guilt for months, he suddenly finds himself back at the scene of the crime. In a moment of sudden guilt he walks, ambles, or meanders down the driveway and is on the verge of bearing his soul to Rawes.

Later, however, our Russian hero rethinks the peril he is in, clams up, and for the next 25-odd years denies everything.

Okay. Thanks for the explanation.

This is my favourite bit of your entire post.

When did I ever claim that Barrett was seeking a Victorian diary because he wanted to know how much to pay Eddie Lyons?

Are you keeping up here, RJ? It's not my theory so why are you addressing it to me?

And even if years ago I had mooted it (I don't recall), I think I have made my current position very clear. Barrett needed a doppelgänger in case the police or the rightful owner came knocking at his door wanting the Victorian 'diary' with the blank pages in back.

I can fully appreciate why you would want to distance yourself from Caz's explanation for Barrett's suspicious attempt to purchase a blank diary. I didn't realize that you, too, had rejected it as illogical. So, my apologies.

But your own theory is equally bad, isn't it? And you're also introducing the same false element that she has.

Barrett did not request a diary with blank pages "in the back." That is your own willful misreading of Earl's advertisement. There is not even the slightest hint that that was what Barrett was after.

He requested a blank or an almost blank Victorian diary, 1880-1890. Thus, he was not trying to replicate or replace another item. He would have been thrilled to have received an absolutely blank, undated book, provided it was from that decade.

Earl's notice makes that clear and undeniable. The advertisement merely states that it must have a minimum of twenty blank pages (the implication is obvious!) not that it has to have twenty blank pages, let alone twenty blank pages in the back.

You didn't really think people weren't going to notice what you tried to do here, did you?

Anyways, I'd be interested in hearing how you think this doppelgänger was supposed to work, considering that the red diary wasn't the least bit doppelgangerish and looks nothing like the scrapbook. If a man buys a stolen Bentley, is he going to also rush out and buy a beat-up Morris Minor in case the cops come around with questions?


In this scenario, is Barrett the idiot or is the investigating police officer (Bonsey?) the idiot? What am I missing?

[erobitha]

Barrett’s genius forger brain requested a diary with at least twenty blank pages.

He might as well have asked for a chocolate teapot.

The very nature of diaries is they have dates in them. It’s what makes them diaries.

He did not specify he wanted an 1888 diary did he?

Not sure you have really considered why he wanted what he asked for in the first place.

I believe Ike is closer to the truth than you could possibly give him credit for RJ.

[Iconoclast]

RJ, as ever raises more questions than my posts properly deserve. I really wish he wouldn't put such a desperate spin on everything so that you're left dizzy and reeling in the mud he's spread around you.

I was referring to the Gerald Kane reference that you made - I wanted to be clear that I was not privy (IIRC) to that debate (not least because I have no reason to think Kane had anything to do with the Victorian scrapbook).

When you say that we have zero evidence that Lyons was at Battlecrease on the morning of March 9, 1992, what exactly do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that Lyons was such an inveterate liar that he would place himself at the scene of the 'crime' even though he wasn't actually there? Like a sort of borderline fake confession?

Rawes' description of his interaction with Lyons on July 17, 1992, smacks wholly of Lyons mulling over the implications of his possibly-impetuous actions back on March 9, 1992. I did not say that he found a watch, by the way, but I do feel that the evidence points overwhelmingly towards his having found and then palmed-off the scrapbook. We don't know how much for (if indeed anyone paid him anything for it) but we can assume that an apparently worthless old scrapbook was worth a twenty or so to Lyons. Anyway, Rawes description is significantly more 'mulling' than 'running', thank you (and you know it).

I meant nothing by the use of 'in the back' for the blank pages. I just misquoted Barrett's eventual advert.

What I would say regarding Rawes' interaction with Lyons is this:

Allowing that the witness statement Rawes gave to Scotland Yard on October 21, 1993, is an accurate record of what he actually told them - and it would have been read back to him before he signed it - then he is talking about the incident at Battlecrease House on July 17, 1992, when Lyons told Rawes he had found something important and he didn't know what to do. On July 17, 1992, there was no public knowledge about the scrapbook - no public knowledge about the floorboards and perhaps more importantly - Paul Feldman was not involved with the project and did not begin his investigation into the electricians until the following year.

So what on earth is Rawes doing signing such a document and why on earth would he lie about that conversation?

[rjpalmer]

I believe Ike is closer to the truth than you could possibly give him credit for RJ.

Ike's theory is nonsensical, Jay.

If Eddie or one of the other electricians had loose lips or decided to come clean and tell Johnny Law that the Diary of Jack the Ripper, written in a largish photo album, had been sold to a man in a pub, Barrett waving around a small red memo book and yelling "here it is, Gov!" wouldn't change anything.

The whole point of a 'doppelganger' is that it is a twin. A naked red dwarf is not the twin of blue-black giant in a suit.

Further, the moment Barrett sold the scrapbook or delivered it a literary agent in London--which he was scheduled to do following his second phone call to Doreen--the whole purpose of this doppelgänger would cease to exist.

For why would Paul Dodd or the police be satisfied with Mike's explanation that Eddie had instead discovery a blank red memo book from 1891 under the floorboards on Riversdale Road if Mike had already delivered James Maybrick's alleged diary to a London literary agent?

Surely you can't believe that Paul Dodd and the police were so stupid that they would have been fooled by this ruse?

It makes no sense, but the good news is that Ike has until 2025 to come up with something better.

All the best.

[Iconoclast]

Ike's theory is nonsensical, Jay.

If Eddie or one of the other electricians had loose lips or decided to come clean and tell Johnny Law that the Diary of Jack the Ripper, written in a largish photo album, had been sold to a man in a pub, Barrett waving around a small red memo book and yelling "here it is, Gov!" wouldn't change anything.

The whole point of a 'doppelganger' is that it is a twin. A naked red dwarf is not the twin of blue-black giant in a suit.

Further, the moment Barrett sold the scrapbook or delivered it a literary agent in London--which he was scheduled to do following his second phone call to Doreen--the whole purpose of this doppelgänger would cease to exist.

For why would Paul Dodd or the police be satisfied with Mike's explanation that Eddie had instead discovery a blank red memo book from 1891 under the floorboards on Riversdale Road if Mike had already delivered James Maybrick's alleged diary to a London literary agent?

Surely you can't believe that Paul Dodd and the police were so stupid that they would have been fooled by this ruse?

It makes no sense, but the good news is that Ike has until 2025 to come up with something better.

All the best.

I would put it to you, RJ, that Barrett's actions at the very start of this process were self-evidently protectionist. He used a false name in his initial calls to Rupert Crew, and he very obviously sought out a Victorian diary which he could palm off as 'his' if anyone came asking for the original back. None of this has to have a long-term plan. He placed this advert in the same days he was speaking with Doreen Montgomery so there is impetuousness (that word again!) potentially at play.

Come the end of March and the obvious realisation that no-one was coming to his door looking for the scrapbook, he was no longer seeking a doppelgänger. He accepted Martin Earl's 1891 diary but there is no evidence at all that he planned to even so much as pay for it (something Alan Gray found to his great personal cost) never mind use it.

No, Barrett acted in haste in the days around his 'phonecall to Rupert Crew. Was this haste because he was attempting to set up a publication of a hoax he hadn't actually written down yet (nor even typed-out yet according to his comical affidavit) or was it the haste of a man desperate to ensure he retained possession of the priceless artefact which had recently come his way?

[Iconoclast]

Rawes' description of his interaction with Lyons on July 17, 1992, smacks wholly of Lyons mulling over the implications of his possibly-impetuous actions back on March 9, 1992. I did not say that he found a watch, by the way, but I do feel that the evidence points overwhelmingly towards his having found and then palmed-off the scrapbook. We don't know how much for (if indeed anyone paid him anything for it) but we can assume that an apparently worthless old scrapbook was worth a twenty or so to Lyons. Anyway, Rawes description is significantly more 'mulling' than 'running', thank you (and you know it).

I have managed to get hold of the actual witness statement from October 21, 1993, which Rawes signed and it read:

"I got the keys to the van, and Lyons said that he'd found a diary under the floorboards in the house, which he thought was important, and didn't know what to do. I acknowledged his comment he was smiling, I'd got the impression he'd recently found it - I then drove back to the company."

Obviously, the inference we are drawing is that Lyons had not 'recently' found it but had found it under the floorboards of Battlecrease on March 9, 1992.

The question we have to ask ourselves is why that conversation between Rawes and Lyons occurred. Did Lyons actually use the word 'diary'? Perhaps this was Rawes expanding on what was actually said but he signed a witness statement for the police so we should assume that at very least the conversation occurred (though the word 'diary' may not necessarily have been used - just trying to be fair here). Either way, Rawes and Lyons had a conversation on July 17, 1992, about something 'important' which Rawes was willing in October 1993 to claim was a 'diary'.

This conversation on July 17, 1992, should not have happened if Eddie Lyons had not found something 'important', possibly even a 'diary', and apparently at Battlecrease (although, again, that is inference). How could Rawes and Lyons have had this conversation? And - if it did not occur - what on earth motivated Rawes to sign an official witness statement to say that it had?